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

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

FLETCHER SMITH,

Petitioner,

v. 4:19cv472–WS/MAF

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPT.

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 13) docketed May 21, 2020. The magistrate judge recommends that

Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED. Petitioner has filed

objections (ECF No. 14) to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and

those objections have been carefully reviewed by the undersigned. 

Upon review of the record in light of Petitioner’s objections, the court has

determined that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation should be

adopted. Like the magistrate judge, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has failed

Case 4:19-cv-00472-WS-MAF Document 15 Filed 06/23/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

to show that he is entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 13) is

hereby ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: "Petitioner's petition for writ of

habeas corpus is DENIED."

4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

5. Leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of June , 2020.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. 

Case 4:19-cv-00472-WS-MAF Document 15 Filed 06/23/20 Page 2 of 2
#### Irvine’s Administrator *vs.*Williams &c.

[Mv. John Trimble for plaintiff: Mr. Hárison for defendants.]

From the Circuit Court for Bourbon County.

Debt.

*November*1.

A declaration on an administration bond, sets ont a judgment for the debt, against the adm'rs, with a return of *nulla .bona,*and also, a judg't against them personally, for a devastavit; but does not aver the non-payment of the 'latter: the want of that averment is a fatal defect.

Plea that the securities were released by the county court ¡replication that after the judg’t for the debt, but before the sureties were released, theadm'r wasted the estate: this rep’n is good on dem’r. -But, as the dem’r goes back to the defect in the dec'n, it must be sustained, tho’ the rep’n is good.

Judge Marshall

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The declaration being upon the administration bond, against the principals and sureties, therein, sets forth a judgment against the administrators, in their fiducial character, with an execution thereon, returned *“nulla*bonaand, also, a judgment against the administrators, personally, for the same debt, obtained on the ground of an alleged devastavit; but it fails to aver the nonpayment of the latter judgment. And, in this respect, it is, in our opinion, fatally defective.

Although, therefore, we are inclined to the opinion, that the release of the'sureties by the Bourbon County Court, as relied on in the plea, is sufficiently avoided by the averment in the replication,; that, after the first judgment-, and before the release pleaded, the administrators had wasted goods and chattels of the decedent to the value of the judgment, yet, as the demurrer to the replication reached the defect in the declaration, and as that defect was neither waived by the plea, nor supplied by any averment in the replication, it was not erroneous to sustain the demurrer, and render judgment thereon in bar of the aetion.

Wherefore, "the judgment is affirmed.
2006-0829.

#### Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy v. Pub. Util. Comm.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 05-792-EL-ATA. On motion for admission pro hac vice of David C. Rinebolt by Colleen L. Mooney on behalf of Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy. Motion granted.
Case 5:20-cr-00016-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 03/04/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 5:20-cr-00016-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 03/04/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 5:20-cr-00016-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 03/04/20 Page 3 of 3
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 258 

AN ACT 

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to 

fraudulent representations about having received military 

decorations or medals. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 258 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stolen Valor Act of 

3 2013’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT RECEIPT 

5 OF MILITARY DECORATIONS OR MEDALS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 704 of title 18, United 

7 States Code, is amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘wears,’’; and 

9 (2) so that subsection (b) reads as follows: 

10 ‘‘(b) FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT RE11 CEIPT OF MILITARY DECORATIONS OR MEDALS.—Who12 ever, with intent to obtain money, property, or other tan13 gible benefit, fraudulently holds oneself out to be a recipi14 ent of a decoration or medal described in subsection (c)(2) 

15 or (d) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 

16 than one year, or both.’’. 

17 (b) ADDITION OF CERTAIN OTHER MEDALS.—Sec18 tion 704(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended— 

19 (1) by striking ‘‘If a decoration’’ and inserting 

20 the following: 

21 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If a decoration’’; 

22 (2) by inserting ‘‘a combat badge,’’ after ‘‘1129 

23 of title 10,’’; and 

24 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

25 ‘‘(2) COMBAT BADGE DEFINED.—In this sub26 section, the term ‘combat badge’ means a Combat 
3 

•HR 258 EH

1 Infantryman’s Badge, Combat Action Badge, Com2 bat Medical Badge, Combat Action Ribbon, or Com3 bat Action Medal.’’. 

4 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 704 of title 

5 18, United States Code, is amended in each of subsections 

6 (c)(1) and (d) by striking ‘‘or (b)’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 20, 2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 258 

AN ACT 

To amend title 18, United States Code, with rereceived military decorations or medals. spect to fraudulent representations about having
§ 250.16 Claims and restitution for donated food losses. ( a ) *Distributing agency responsibilities.* The distributing agency must ensure that restitution is made for the loss of donated foods, or for the loss or improper use of funds provided for, or obtained as an incident of, the distribution of donated foods. The distributing agency must identify, and seek restitution from, parties responsible for the loss, and implement corrective actions to prevent future losses.
( b ) *FNS claim actions.* FNS may initiate and pursue claims against the distributing agency or other entities for the loss of donated foods, or for the loss or improper use of funds provided for, or obtained as an incident of, the distribution of donated foods. FNS may also initiate and pursue claims against the distributing agency for failure to take required claim actions against other parties. FNS may, on behalf of the Department, compromise, forgive, suspend, or waive a claim. FNS may, at its option, require assignment to it of any claim arising from the distribution of donated foods.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Case Nos. 3:99cr50/RV/CJK

 3:16cv329/RV/CJK

PAUL EVERETTE CLAYTON,

Defendant. 

_____________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated September 30, 2016 (doc. 252). Plaintiff 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). No

objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, 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. Defendant’s motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 

Case 3:99-cr-00050-RV-CJK Document 253 Filed 11/01/16 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

249) is SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of November, 2016.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:99-cr-00050-RV-CJK Document 253 Filed 11/01/16 Page 2 of 2
#### § 29.6036 Sound.

Free of damage. (See Rule 4.)
#### § 28.501 Color Grade No. 1.

Color grade No. 1 shall be American Pima cotton which in color is within the range represented by a set of samples in the custody of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in a container marked “Original Official Cotton Standards of the United States, American Pima, Color Grade No. 1, effective July 1, 1986.”

[65 FR 36600, June 9, 2000]
EX-10.28



 






EXHIBIT 10.28




VCA ANTECH, INC.

SUMMARY OF CASH BONUS PLAN

FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

2005




      The Compensation Committee has established a cash bonus plan for the Company’s executive
officers. Under the plan, the Compensation Committee awards annual cash bonuses to executive
officers if the Company and/or the executive achieves performance criteria established by the
Compensation Committee. Each year, the Compensation Committee establishes the range of potential
bonuses for each executive officer (which are typically set as a percentage of base salary) and the
performance criteria for such year. Alternatively, the Compensation Committee may determine to
award cash bonuses in its discretion to any particular executive officer.



      For 2004, the Compensation Committee established, for each of our Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, the potential range of bonuses and applicable
performance criteria based on Adjusted EBITDA, which is defined as earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation and amortization, adjusted to exclude certain significant items as determined in the
discretion of Compensation Committee. The potential bonus amounts for these officers, as
percentage of the base salaries of these officers, are set forth in the table below.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Aggregate Cash Bonus
	 	 	Base Cash Bonus (as a	 	(as a percentage of
	 	 	percentage of Base	 	Base Salary) if 103%
	 	 	Salary) if Target	 	or more of Target
	Executive Officer	 	Satisfied1	 	Satisfied2
	Chief Executive Officer

	 	 	50	 	 	 	100	 
	Chief Operating Officer

	 	 	45	 	 	 	90	 
	Chief Financial Officer

	 	 	35	 	 	 	70	 





1  These amounts are prorated if the executive officer or the Company achieves 97%
to 100% of the performance target.



2  These amounts are prorated if the executive officer or the Company achieves
100% to 103% of the performance target.




      For the Senior Vice President of Development, the Compensation Committee established a
potential bonus ranging from 35% of base salary (if the performance criteria are met) up to 70% of
base salary (if 103% of the performance criteria are met). The performance criteria in the case of
the Senior Vice President of Development are based on Adjusted EBITDA and an annual development
target measured by the aggregate annualized revenue attributable to all acquired businesses during
the year. These amounts are prorated if 97% to 103% of the performance criteria are achieved.



 








 





      For 2004 the Compensation Committee determined that it would award a cash bonus to the
Principal Accounting Officer as determined in the sole discretion of the Compensation Committee.
Bonus ranges and performance criteria were not established for this executive officer.



      The Compensation Committee has not established bonus ranges or performance criteria for 2005
as of the date of this filing.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Quarterly Report of Oakmont Acquisition Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael C. Azar, President of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: November 14, 2005/s/    MICHAEL C.
AZARMichael C. AzarPresident (Principal Executive Officer)
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DANNY McDANIEL,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 4:03-CV-222-SPM/AK

LARRY CAMPBELL, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND DISMISSING CASE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the magistrate judge's report

and recommendation (doc. 34) dated February 1, 2006. The parties have been

furnished a copy and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections. 

Plaintiff filed his objections (doc. 35) on February 27, 2006.

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I have made

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

Plaintiff’s “new” due process issue, which still relates to his illegal-detainer claim,

is one that should have been included in the original complaint. See In re Justice

Oaks II, Ltd., 898 F.2d 1544, 1550, n.3 (11th Cir. 1990).

Case 4:03-cv-00222-SPM-AK Document 36 Filed 03/02/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to relief. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 34) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The second amended complaint (doc. 33) is dismissed for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

3. The clerk is directed to note on the docket that this complaint is

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

DONE AND ORDERED this second day of March, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

/pao

Case 4:03-cv-00222-SPM-AK Document 36 Filed 03/02/06 Page 2 of 2
#### § 319.41-6 Importations by mail.

In addition to entries by freight or express provided for in § 319.41-5, importations are permitted by mail of mature corn on the cob from the countries specified in § 319.41-1(b)(2), and clean shelled corn and clean seed of the other plants covered by § 319.41, provided that a permit has been issued for the importation in accordance with §§ 319.7 through 319.7-5 and all conditions of the permit are met.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0049)

[79 FR 19810, Apr. 10, 2014]
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-31205 Summary Calendar

ALFRED JOSEPH ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JOSEPH S. WOODLEY; SANDRA P. PAYNE; GORDON E. ROUNTREE; BOSSIER RADIOLOGY CENTER; RICHARD D. HANDLEY, M.D., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-113

- - - - - - - - - - May 29, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: 1 Alfred Joseph Alexander appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(6). Alexander’s challenge to the district court’s imposition of sanction and its refusal to grant a hearing on his request for injunctive relief is not properly before the court as Alexander previously appealed these issues.Alexander’s challenge to the magistrate judge’s order setting

aside the entry of a default judgment was not appealed to the district court and therefore cannot be reviewed by this court. Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc. , 883 F.2d 372, 379 (5th Cir. 1989). Alexander contends that the district court erred in dismissing his action against appellees. We have reviewed the record and Alexander’s briefs and AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal for essentially the same reasons adopted by the district court. Alexander v. Woodley , 95-CV-113 (W.D. La. Nov. 15, 1995).
AFFIRMED.
#### §§ 319.56-8-319.56-9 [Reserved]
<PAGE>
                                                               EXHIBIT 10(T)(21)

                    CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC. RETIREMENT PLAN

               (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 1999)

                                 Tenth Amendment

          CenterPoint Energy, Inc., a Texas corporation, having reserved the
right under Section 15.1 of the CenterPoint Energy, Inc. Retirement Plan, as
amended and restated effective as of January 1, 1999, and as thereafter amended
(the "Plan"), to amend the Plan, does hereby amend the Plan, effective as of
January 1, 2005, as follows:

          1. Section 9.2(c) of the Plan is hereby amended by replacing the
reference to "Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000)" with "$1,000" therein.

          2. Section 11.6 of the Plan is hereby amended by replacing the
references to "Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000)" with "$1,000" therein.

          3. Section 11.10(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the
second sentence therein.

          4. The penultimate paragraph of Section 17.7 of the Plan is hereby
amended by replacing the reference to "$5,000" with "$1,000" therein.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CenterPoint Energy, Inc. has caused these presents
to be executed by its duly authorized officer in a number of copies, all of
which shall constitute one and the same instrument, which may be sufficiently
evidenced by any executed copy hereof, on this 20th day of December 2004, but
effective as of January 1, 2005.

                                      CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC.


                                      By /s/ David M. McClanahan
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         David M. McClanahan
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer

ATTEST:


/s/ Richard Dauphin
-----------------------------------
Richard Dauphin
Assistant Secretary
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2434

ROGELIO RAMIREZ,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A70-674-170)

Submitted: July 18, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ivan Yacub, LAW OFFICE OF IVAN YACUB, Falls Church, Virginia, for

Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.

Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Song E. Park, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*In his brief, Ramirez challenges the fact that his decision

was rendered by a single Board member without following the proper

regulations based on his mistaken belief that his case was decided

pursuant to the regulatory procedures governing orders that

summarily affirm without opinion. Instead, Ramirez’s case was

decided by a single Board member pursuant to 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.1(e)(5) (2005). Thus, we find that Ramirez’s claim that the

Board failed to follow its own regulations is clearly without

merit.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Rogelio Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration

judge’s denial of his second motion to reopen immigration

proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and

find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in upholding the

denial of Ramirez’s motion. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314,

323-24 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for

the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Ramirez, No.

A70-674-170 (B.I.A. Oct. 18, 2004).* We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Editorial Note on Part 3400
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3400 appear at 76 FR 4806, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3400.7 Use of funds; changes. ( a ) *Delegation of fiscal responsibility.* The grantee may not delegate or transfer in whole or in part, to another person, institution, or organization the responsibility for use or expenditure of grant funds.
( b ) *Change in project plans.* ( 1 ) The permissible changes by the grantee, principal investigator(s), or other key project personnel in the approved research project grant shall be limited to changes in methodology, techniques, or other aspects of the project to expedite achievement of the projects' approved goals. If the grantee or the principal investigator(s) is uncertain as to whether a change complies with this provision, the question must be referred to the Director for a final determination.
( 2 ) Changes in approved goals, or objectives, shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the Department prior to effecting such changes. In no event shall requests for such changes be approved which are outside the scope of the original approved project.
( 3 ) Changes in approved project leadership or the replacement or reassignment of other key project personnel shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the Department prior to effecting such changes.
( 4 ) Transfers of actual performance of the substantive programmatic work in whole or in part and provisions for payment of funds, whether or not Federal funds are involved, shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the Department prior to effecting such changes, except as may be allowed in the terms and conditions of the grant award.
( c ) *Changes in project period.* The project period determined pursuant to § 3400.5(b) may be extended by the Director without additional financial support for such additional period(s) as the Director determines may be necessary to complete or fulfill the purposes of an approved project. Any extension, when combined with the originally approved or amended project period shall not exceed three (3) years (the limitation established by statute) and shall be further conditioned upon prior request by the grantee and approval in writing by the Department, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of a grant award.
( d ) *Changes in approved budget.* The terms and conditions of a grant will prescribe circumstances under which written Departmental approval will be requested and obtained prior to instituting changes in an approved budget.
[56 FR 58147, Nov. 15, 1991, as amended at 64 FR 34103, June 24, 1999]