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

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-0389 SNPRM

Directorate ID: 2007-NM-189-AD

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO, we don’t agree because 
Page 2 of 3

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Date

Branch Manager Date
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v .

Case Nos.:3:98cr68/LC/CJK

3:16cv202/LC/CJK

GREGORY VAUGHN ROBINSON,

Reg. No. 05002-017

_______________________________/

ORDER

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

Report and Recommendation dated September 18, 2016 (doc. 93). Defendant 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). I have made a de novo determination of the timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections

thereto timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (ECF No. 91) is

Case Nos.: 3:98cr68/LC/CJK; 3:16cv202/LC/CJK

Case 3:98-cr-00068-LC-CJK Document 95 Filed 06/05/16 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

summarily DENIED and DISMISSED.

2. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5 day of June, 2016.

th

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case Nos.: 3:98cr68/LC/CJK; 3:16cv202/LC/CJK

Case 3:98-cr-00068-LC-CJK Document 95 Filed 06/05/16 Page 2 of 2
#### § 29.1130 Rule 24.

Tobacco shall be designated by the grademark, “No-G-F,” when it contains stalks, suckers, or foreign matter such as straw, strings, rubber bands, grass, weeds, or an excessive amount of dirt or sand.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:01cr13-RH/WCS

4:05cv25-RH/WCS

GREGORY EUGENE GARDNER, SR.,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING §2255 MOTION

This matter is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 214) and the objections thereto (document 215). I

have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections. The report and

recommendation is correct and will be adopted as the opinion of the court, with

this additional note.

Defendant suggests that I should disqualify myself because I presided over

two civil actions against him in addition to the instant criminal case and because

certain of my rulings and explanations in this case were incorrect and thus

allegedly show bias. None of this provides a basis for disqualification. I based all

of my rulings in this case on information properly presented on the record in this

Case 4:01-cr-00013-RH-WCS Document 216 Filed 02/28/07 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:01cr13-RH/WCS and 4:05cv25-RH/WCS

case; allegations in the civil actions were taken into account not at all.

For these reasons and those set forth in the report and recommendation,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the opinion

of the court. The clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Defendant’s motion, as

amended, for relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255 (document 211) is DENIED WITH

PREJUDICE.” The clerk shall close the file.

SO ORDERED this 27th day of February, 2007.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cr-00013-RH-WCS Document 216 Filed 02/28/07 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23(c)

                            [Saw and Co. Letterhead]

                  REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS



TO: FUJI FABRICATION SDN. BHD.


We have audited the balance sheet of FUJI FABRICATION SDN. BHD. incorporated in
Malaysia and referred to as the "Company" as of January 31, 2002 and 2001 and
the related statements of income, stockholders' equity and changes in financial
position for each of the two years ended January 31, 2002. These financial
statements have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles in Malaysia. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express as opinion on these
financial statements based on our audit.

We have conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards in Malaysia which are substantially the same as those followed in the
United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of
material misstatement. An audit also includes assessing the accounting
principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our
audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of FUJI FABRICATION SDN. BHD. as
of January 31, 2002 and 2001 and the results of their operations and changes in
their financial position for each of the two years ended January 31, 2002 in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles in Malaysia.





[Signature]


SAW & CO.
FIRM NUMBER: AF 0666
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS



MALAYSIA
March 25, 2002
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10(MM)


                            CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC.

                 SUMMARY OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION

     The following is a summary of compensation paid to the named executive
officers of CenterPoint Energy, Inc. (the "Company"). For additional information
regarding the compensation of the named executive officers, please read the
definitive proxy statement relating to the Company's 2005 annual meeting of
shareholders to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A and the Company's Current
Reports on Form 8-K referenced below.

     Base Salary. The following table sets forth the annual base salary of the
Company's named executive officers effective April 1, 2005:

<Table>
<Caption>
                     NAME AND POSITION                        2005 BASE SALARY
                     -----------------                        ----------------
<S>                                                                <C>
            David M. McClanahan                                    $880,000
            President and Chief Executive Officer

            Scott E. Rozzell                                       $405,000
            Executive Vice President, General Counsel
            and Corporate Secretary

            Gary L. Whitlock                                       $415,000
            Executive Vice President and Chief
            Financial Officer

            Byron R. Kelley                                        $302,000
            Senior Vice President and Group President
            and Chief Operating Officer, CenterPoint
            Energy Pipelines and Field Services

            Thomas R. Standish                                     $314,000
            Senior Vice President and Group President
            and Chief Operating Officer, CenterPoint
            Energy Houston Electric, LLC
</Table>


     Short-Term Incentive Compensation Plan. Annual bonuses are paid to the
Company's named executive officers pursuant to the Company's short-term
incentive compensation plan, which provides for cash bonuses based on
achievement over the course of the year of performance objectives approved by
the Compensation Committee at the commencement of the year, in addition to cash
bonuses which are based on individual performance and accomplishments.

     Information regarding payouts under the short-term incentive compensation
plan for fiscal year 2004 and performance goals for the named executive officers
for 2005 is contained in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K dated February
21, 2005.

     Long-Term Incentive Compensation. Under the Company's long-term incentive
plan, the Company's named executive officers may receive grants of (i) stock
option awards, (ii) performance share awards and performance unit awards and/or
(iii) restricted stock.

     Information regarding certain awards to the Company's named executive
officers pursuant to the Company's long-term incentive plan is contained in the
Company's Current Reports on Form 8-K dated January 25, 2005 and February 21,
2005.
Case 1:03-cv-00064-MP-AK   Document 22   Filed 06/17/05   Page 1 of 2

Case 1:03-cv-00064-MP-AK   Document 22   Filed 06/17/05   Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

RAYMOND LATSON,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 1:03-CV-148-SPM/AK

NURSE HAGAN, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND REMANDING CASE

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

and recommendation (doc. 60) dated July 13, 2005. The parties have been

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

Defendant Michael Menefee, M.D., filed an objection (doc. 61) on July 28, 2005. 

I have made a de novo determination of those portions to which an

objection has been made. Menefee’s objection goes not to the merits of the

case, but is rather a clarification that Menefee was not required to submit a

special report as per the magistrate’s order of November 10, 2004 (doc. 35). 

Menefee is correct, and the objection is noted for the record. 

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

Case 1:03-cv-00148-SPM-AK Document 66 Filed 08/04/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

determined that the report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 60) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 43) is hereby

denied.

3. This case is remanded to the magistrate for further proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED this fourth day of August, 2005.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

/pao

Case 1:03-cv-00148-SPM-AK Document 66 Filed 08/04/05 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cr-1007-MMP/AK

RICHARD KEITH WILLIAMS,

Defendant.

___________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1058, Motion to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,

and Doc. 1059, Motion for Appropriate Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, by Richard Keith

Williams. Both motions are predicated on Blakely v. Washington.

Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment on June 28, 1991. Doc. 1058 at 1. 

Judgment was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit on March 14, 1995. Id. at 2. His petition for

writ of certiorari was denied, and his motion for § 2255 relief was summarily denied as untimely. 

Docs. 716 & 723. On this occasion, Petitioner charges that his sentence was unconstitutionally

enhanced. Doc. 1059 at 2.

Following its decision in Blakely v. Washington, which involved the constitutionality of

state sentencing guidelines, the United States Supreme Court determined that Blakely applies to

the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as well. United States v. Booker, ____ U.S. ____, 124 S.Ct.

2519, 159 L.Ed. 2d 442 (2004). However, the Eleventh Circuit has recently determined that

Booker is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review, as “Booker’s constitutional

rule falls squarely under the category of new rules of criminal procedure that do not apply

retroactively to § 2255 cases on collateral review.” Varela v. United States, 400 F.3d 864, 868

Case 1:88-cr-01007-MW-GRJ Document 1060 Filed 07/15/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:88-cr-01007-MP

(11th Cir. 2005).

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That Defendant’s motion to vacate, Doc. 1058, be DENIED;

That Defendant’s motion for appropriate relief, Doc. 1059, is DENIED.

IN CHAMBERS at Gainesville, Florida, this 15th day of July, 2005.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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.

 

Case 1:88-cr-01007-MW-GRJ Document 1060 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 2
#### § 29.2533 Maturity.

The degree of ripeness. (See chart, § 29.2601.)

[37 FR 13626, July 12, 1972. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984]
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

I, Richard Heyse,
certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Innophos, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

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

The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to
update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: August 7, 2008



/s/ RICHARD HEYSERichard HeyseVice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18
U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



52
# L_2020398EN.01000101.xml

| 27.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 398/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 398/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/1767

of 20 November 2020

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ‘Rucola della Piana del Sele’ (PGI)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Rucola della Piana del Sele’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Rucola della Piana del Sele’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Rucola della Piana del Sele’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Rucola della Piana del Sele’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Rucola della Piana del Sele’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. – Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 November 2020.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 254, 3.8.2020, p. 17.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Case No. 3:99cr30/RV 

3:12cv294/RV/CJK

ELIJAH WILLIE DIAL

________________________________________________________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

filed on November 8, 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and after reviewing

objections to the Recommendation, if any, the Recommendation is adopted as the

opinion of the Court.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

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

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The defendant’s amended motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence

(doc. 403) is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of December, 2012.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### In the Matter of Vincent J. Leonardo, Appellant, v. Howard R. Leary, Police Commissioner of the City of New York, Respondent.

Judgment and order (one paper), entered January 7, 1969, unanimously affirmed on the opinion of Mr. Justice Frank, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. 'Concur—■ Stevens, P. J., Eager, Mdrivern and Nunez, JJ.
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-3004

Lower Tribunal No. 2022CA-000272-0000-00

_____________________________

ASHLEY HENDRICKSON, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF ALLEN W.

HENDRICKSON,

Appellant, 

v.

PREFERRED MATERIALS, INC.,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County.

James A. Yancey, Judge.

August 6, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

STARGEL and WHITE, JJ., and LAMBERT, B.D., Associate Judge, concur.

William D. Mueller and Elliot B. Kula, of Kula & Associates, P.A., Miami, and

Thomas Scolaro, of Scolaro Law, P.A., Miami, for Appellant.

Duane A. Daiker, Peter P. Murnagahn, and Jill K. Schmidt, of Shumaker, Loop & 

Kendrick, LLP, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 v. Case No. 3:98cr121/RV

DONALD DARRELL MCCREA

___________________________________/

ORDER REDUCING SENTENCE

Currently pending is the Government’s motion advising the Court of the

defendant’s substantial assistance under Rule 35(b), Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure. (Doc. 53) The Government has certified defendant McCrea’s continuing

substantial assistance in the investigation of prosecution of other individuals, so that

a reduction of sentence under Rule 35(b) is warranted.

Upon consideration, I find that the grounds set out in the Government's motion

do constitute substantial assistance within the meaning of Rule 35(b). Accordingly,

defendant McCrea’s sentence and judgment entered herein on March 11, 1999, is

hereby amended and his sentence of imprisonment is reduced from a term of two

hundred sixty-two (262) months, followed by eight (8) years of supervised release, to

a term of one hundred thirty-two (132) months as to Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4, all to run

concurrent, followed by five (5) years of supervised release as to Counts 1, 2, 3, and

4, all to run concurrent. In all other respects, the defendant's judgment of March 11,

1999 (doc. 25), remains in full force and effect.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of May, 2005.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge 

Case 3:98-cr-00121-MCR Document 55 Filed 05/17/05 Page 1 of 1