alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2222 

To prohibit performance awards in the Senior Executive Service during 

sequestration periods. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 3, 2013 

Mr. FITZPATRICK (for himself and Mr. MEADOWS) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform 

A BILL 

To prohibit performance awards in the Senior Executive 

Service during sequestration periods. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON PERFORMANCE AWARDS IN 

4 THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE. 

5 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

6 (1) the terms ‘‘agency’’ and ‘‘career appointee’’ 

7 have the meanings given such terms in section 5381 

8 of title 5, United States Code; and 

9 (2) the term ‘‘sequestration period’’ means a 

10 period beginning on the date on which a sequestraVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:58 Jun 04, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2222.IH H2222

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2222 IH

1 tion order is issued under section 251 or 251A of 

2 the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 

3 Act (2 U.S.C. 901 and 901a) and ending on the last 

4 day of the fiscal year to which the sequestration 

5 order applies. 

6 (b) PROHIBITION.—Notwithstanding any other provi7 sion of law, an agency may not pay a performance award 

8 under section 5384 of title 5, United States Code, to a 

9 career appointee— 

10 (1) during a sequestration period; or 

11 (2) that relates to any period of service per12 formed during a fiscal year during which a seques13 tration order is issued under section 251 or 251A of 

14 the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 

15 Act (2 U.S.C. 901 and 901a). 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Summary of base salary adjustments for named executive officers



 Exhibit 10.15 
  
 Adjustments to Compensation for Named Executive Officers 
  

				
	 Adjusted salary for CEO from CEO’s Employment Agreement
	  	$	350,000
		
	 Adjusted salary for CFO from CFO’s Employment Agreement
	  	$	185,000
	 Adjusted salary for former Chief Operating Officer from such COO’s Employment Agreement in effect prior to termination of that Employment
Agreement effective August 11, 2004 in connection with COO’s resignation as an executive officer of the Company:
	  	$	175,000
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Ultra Custom Cleaners ) ASBCA No. 62737

)

Under Contract No. N00250-18-C-0201 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Ms. Zahra Kohl

 President

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

 Navy Chief Trial Attorney

Adam J. Bester, Esq.

 Trial Attorney

 Virginia Beach, VA

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: March 22, 2021

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62737, Appeal of Ultra Custom 

Cleaners, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: March 23, 2021 

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
United States District Court

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

In Re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Date: June 16, 2021

Products Liability Litigation Case No.: 3:19md2885 

Relates to: 7:20cv39 (Baker) Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones 

___

DOCKET ENTRY: Jury Trial (Day 8)

Witness testimony heard and evidence admitted. Jury Trial to resume on Thursday, June 17, 2021 at

8:00 am (w/attorney conference at 7:30 am). 

____ 

PRESENT : HONORABLE M. CASEY RODGERS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Susan Simms Donna Boland Hillary Dang/Justin Ferraro

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Law Clerk

APPEARANCES: 

Appearances for Plaintiffs: Sean Tracey, David Buchanan, Shelley Hutson, Michael Sacchet, 

Caleb Seeley and Megan Odom 

Appearances for Defendants: Kimberly Branscome, Jay Bhimani, Allie Ozurovich, and Charles Beall

PROCEEDINGS:

7:30 am Court in Session – Attorney Conference

Court and counsel review proposed jury instructions

7:58 am Court in Recess

8:06 am Court in Session - Jury Present

Defendants expert witness Dr. JOHN CASALI sworn – Direct (Branscome) resumes

Defendants Exhibits admitted: P-Gen -3100

Demonstrative aid: P-Gen-152

10:22 am Jury Excused – Court in Recess

10:37 am Court in Session – Jury Present

Cross (Tracey) of expert witness Dr. John Casali

Plaintiff Exhibits admitted: P-Gen #s 9054, 1731 & 111

Demonstrative aid: P-Gen-9053, 9051, 9052

12:28 pm Jury Excused 

12:32 pm Court in Recess 

1:01 pm Court in Session – Jury Present

Cross (Tracey) resumes of expert witness Dr. John Casali

1:16 pm Redirect (Branscome) of expert witness Dr. John Casali

1:23 pm Defendants witness Dr. DANIEL OHAMA– testimony by video deposition

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 177 Filed 06/16/21 Page 1 of 2
In Re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Jury Trial

Products Liability Litigation Continued (Day 8) June 16, 2021

Page 2 of 2

1:30 pm Defendants witness MARK ROBERT VAN DENSEN – testimony by video deposition

1:36 pm Defendants witness Lt. Col. KEVIN ALLEN HANNAH – testimony by video 

deposition

1:40 pm Defendants witness BRIAN DIMOFF – testimony by video deposition

1:43 pm Defendants witness Dr. GREGORY FLAMME sworn – Direct (Branscome)

Demonstrative aid: Flamme slides

2:16 pm Court designates as an expert witness

3:12 pm Jury Excused – Court in Recess

3:30 pm Court in Session – Jury Present

4:57 pm Cross (Buchanan) of expert witness Dr. Gregory Flamme

Demonstrative aid: D-Baker-691

5:31 pm Jury Excused

Court and counsel discuss time, jury instructions and trial matters

Plaintiff (Seeley) and Defendants (Branscome) identify exhibits in video depositions

Klun: P-Gen #s 320, 332, 34, 321, 326, 44, 38, 426, 14, 509, 501, 516, 599, 598, 635, 

81, 80, 1470

Kieper: D-Gen-1567, P-Gen #s 1140, 452, 433

Myers: P-Gen #s 2638, 92, 3078

Merkley: D-Gen #s 1501, 1502, 118

Battler: D-Gen #s 91, 136, 378

5:40 pm Court will instruct the jury and counsel provide closing statements on Friday

5:43 pm Court in Recess (evening)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Date: June 16, 2021 Total Court Time: 9 hours, 3 minutes

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 177 Filed 06/16/21 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

        <S> <C>
<ARTICLE>                     5



<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         $ 30,161,614
<SECURITIES>                                      8,391,807
<RECEIVABLES>                                     2,925,390
<ALLOWANCES>                                         65,000
<INVENTORY>                                         433,873
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 42,073,304
<PP&E>                                           28,985,666
<DEPRECIATION>                                    4,695,669
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   71,140,309
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3,107,225
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                            145,378
<OTHER-SE>                                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     71,140,309
<SALES>                                          24,557,374
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 24,557,374
<CGS>                                             6,141,330
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    11,015,370
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     35,268  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   21,095
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  14,847,531
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5,350,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               9,497,531
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                      9,497,531
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .66
        


</TABLE>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:** A**ddressing thechallenges of international bribery and fair competition [electronic resource].**
 
SuDoc:C 61.57:
ItemNumber: Link0231-B-30 (online)
CGPsystem Number: 000572184
 
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
#### § 29.35 Lot seal.

A seal approved by the Director for sealing lots of tobacco certificated under the Act.
118 STAT. 1362 PUBLIC LAW 108–340—OCT. 18, 2004

Public Law 108–340

108th Congress

An Act

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the preservation

and interpretation of the historic sites of the Manhattan Project for potential

inclusion in the National Park System.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Manhattan Project National

Historical Park Study Act’’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary

of the Interior.

(2) STUDY.—The term ‘‘study’’ means the study authorized

by section 3(a).

(3) STUDY AREA.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘study area’’ means the

historically significant sites associated with the Manhattan

Project.

(B) INCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘study area’’ includes—

(i) Los Alamos National Laboratory and townsite

in the State of New Mexico;

(ii) the Hanford Site in the State of Washington;

and

(iii) Oak Ridge Reservation in the State of Tennessee.

SEC. 3. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY.

(a) STUDY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the

Secretary of Energy, shall conduct a special resource study

of the study area to assess the national significance, suitability,

and feasibility of designating 1 or more sites within the study

area as a unit of the National Park System in accordance

with section 8(c) of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)).

(2) ADMINISTRATION.—In conducting the study, the Secretary shall—

(A) consult with interested Federal, State, tribal, and

local officials, representatives of organizations, and members of the public;

(B) evaluate, in coordination with the Secretary of

Energy, the compatibility of designating 1 or more sites

within the study area as a unit of the National Park

Manhattan

Project National

Historical Park

Study Act.

State listing.

Oct. 18, 2004

[S. 1687]

PUBLIC LAW 108–340—OCT. 18, 2004 118 STAT. 1363

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1687:

SENATE REPORTS: No. 108–270 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Sept. 15, considered and passed Senate.

Sept. 28, considered and passed House.

Æ

System with maintaining the security, productivity, and

management goals of the Department of Energy and public

health and safety; and

(C) consider research in existence on the date of enactment of this Act by the Department of Energy on the

historical significance and feasibility of preserving and

interpreting the various sites and structures in the study

area.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date on which

funds are made available to carry out the study, the Secretary

shall submit to Congress a report that describes the findings of

the study and the conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are

necessary to carry out this Act.

Approved October 18, 2004.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3153

___________

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, *

Plaintiff, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Carlotta J. Wilson; Joseph E. Wilson; * Western District of Missouri.

Debbie L. Wilson, also known as *

Debbie L. Wilson Frazier; Douglas G. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Wilson, *

*

Defendants, *

*

Carrie A. Mallory, *

*

Appellant, *

*

Edward A. Wilson, *

*

Defendant, *

*

Rebecca Lake Wood, Jackson County, *

Missouri Public Administrator, *

Administer ad litem for the Estate of *

Eugene Wilson, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 22, 2009

Filed: January 29, 2009

___________
1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Carrie A. Mallory appeals the district court’s1

 order directing that benefits from

an ERISA-regulated life insurance plan be turned over to the probate estate of Eugene

Wilson for distribution by the Missouri state court. Specifically, she challenges the

district court’s finding, after a bench trial, that in August 2005 Wilson lacked the

mental capacity to make a valid beneficiary designation.

We first note that because Mallory did not provide a trial transcript, we are

unable to review the district court’s factual findings or its determinations regarding

witness credibility. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(1) (discussing appellant’s duty to order

transcript); Van Treese v. Blome, 7 F.3d 729, 729 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (district

court’s factual findings after bench trial cannot be reviewed without transcript);

Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners, 827 F.2d 384, 385-86 (8th Cir. 1987)

(per curiam) (where pro se appellant did not order trial transcript, this court could not

review evidentiary rulings or sufficiency of evidence). 

Upon careful de novo review of the district court’s legal conclusions, we find

no reversible error. See United States v. Missouri, 535 F.3d 844, 848 (8th Cir. 2008)

(de novo review in appeal from civil bench trial); Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y v.

Crysler, 66 F.3d 944, 948 (8th Cir. 1995) (designation of ERISA plan beneficiaries

and determination of who is entitled to plan benefits are questions of federal law);

Mohamed v. Kerr, 53 F.3d 911, 913 (8th Cir. 1995) (federal common law should be

applied where there is no federal statutory law to apply in ERISA litigation; in

developing federal common law, courts may be guided by state law that does not
-3-

conflict with ERISA or its underlying policies); Machens v. Machens, 263 S.W.2d

724,726-28 (Mo. 1954) (discussing mental incapacity); Morse v. Volz, 808 S.W.2d

424, 430 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991) (same). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
#### § 202.1 Meaning of words.

As used in this part, words in the singular form shall be deemed to import the plural, and vice versa, as the case may require.
www.anchorreporters.com

(850)432-2511

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT 

IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________________________________________

 RAYME EDLER, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. CASE NO.: 2019-CA-001206

 DIVISION: F 

 

 MELISSA PINO, 

 

 Defendant. 

______________________________________________________/

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

 DATE TAKEN: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 

 TIME: 1:00 p.m. - 5:45 p.m. 

 PLACE: M.C. Blanchard Judicial Center 

 190 Governmental Center 

 Pensacola, Florida 32502 

 BEFORE: Jeff Burns, Circuit Judge 

This cause came on to be heard at the time and place of 

aforesaid, when and where the following proceedings were 

reported by: 

Kimberly A. Rodgers, Florida Professional Reporter 

Notary Public, State of Florida 

Anchor Court Reporting

229 South Baylen Street 

Pensacola, Florida 32502 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 37-2 Filed 06/08/20 Page 1 of 3
 92

www.anchorreporters.com

(850)432-2511

that?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Dr. Edler, as far as being a public

figure, do you consider yourself a public figure?

A. No.

Q. What power and influence, if any, do you have

over any affairs of the government?

A. I don't have any.

Q. Do you consider yourself to be a highly

visible person?

MR. TALBOTT: Objection, Your Honor, as to

what she considers herself. The issue is not

whether she considers.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (By Mr. Indest) Dr. Edler, are you a

representative of the government?

A. No.

Q. Do you have power over citizens?

A. No.

Q. Do you -- are you allowed broad discretion in

the exercise of your powers and your authority?

A. No.

Q. Do you have substantial responsibilities or

control over the conduct of government affairs in

Escambia County?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 37-2 Filed 06/08/20 Page 2 of 3
 93

www.anchorreporters.com

(850)432-2511

A. No.

Q. Did you ever take an oath of office to be an

officer?

A. No.

Q. Do you make any public policy?

A. No.

Q. What are you as far as full-time or part-time?

A. As of when Ms. Gilley came on board, I'm now

considered full-time.

Q. But when these postings were made, were you

part-time?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have control of hiring and firing

anyone in your department?

A. No.

Q. Do you have any control over even disciplining

anyone in your department?

A. No.

Q. Have you been told that you have no

administrative or managerial authority at all?

A. Yes, I have been told that.

MR. INDEST: Your Honor, we're finished with

our direct of Dr. Edler subject to redirect if

necessary. I don't know if a break would be

appropriate at this time or if Dr. Edler needs a

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 37-2 Filed 06/08/20 Page 3 of 3
§ 3201.51 Parts wash solutions. ( a ) *Definition.* Products that are designed to clean parts in manual or automatic cleaning systems. Such systems include, but are not limited to, soak vats and tanks, cabinet washers, and ultrasonic cleaners.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 65 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than October 27, 2010, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased parts wash solutions. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased parts wash solutions.
[74 FR 55093, Oct. 27, 2009]
Order entered October 6, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00276-CR

STEVEN JAMES MORRIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 072064

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s October 4, 2021 second motion to extend 

time to file appellant’s brief. We GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER

appellant’s brief filed on or before October 25, 2021. If appellant’s brief is not 

filed by that date, this appeal may be abated for the trial court to make findings in 

accordance with rule of appellate procedure 38.8. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2).

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 4:93cr4028-WS

vs. Case No. 4:05cv443-WS/WCS

KEITH LAPELL BIGGINS, 

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF APPEAL

This cause is before the court on Defendant's notice of appeal. Doc. 858. He

appeals the summary denial of his "Motion Filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60(b)(6) for Relief from Final Judgment Order Denying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to

Vacate, Set Aside or Correct." Doc. 850. While not necessarily a second or successive

§ 2255 motion requiring authorization for filing, the court found that Defendant was not

entitled to Rule 60 relief. Docs. 851, 856, and 857 (report and recommendation,

adopting order, and judgment). 

Case 4:93-cr-04028-WS-CAS Document 860 Filed 02/22/06 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case Nos. 4:93cr4028-WS and 4:05cv443-WS/WCS

It is noted that the Eleventh Circuit has twice denied leave to file a second or §

2255 successive motion. Doc. 846 and 855. The first denial was mentioned in the

recommendation. Doc. 851, p. 2. The second denial was entered after the

recommendation was entered but before it was adopted. 

A certificate of appealability is required for this appeal. § 2253(c)(1)(B);

Fed.R.App.P. 22(b)(1); Gonzalez v. Secretary for Dept. of Corrections, 366 F.3d 1253,

1262-64 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (a certificate of appealability is required to appeal

the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment in a § 2255 proceeding),

affirmed on other grounds Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. , 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162

L.Ed.2d 480 (2005); Jackson v. Crosby, F.3d , 2006 WL 237143 (11th Cir.

February 2, 2006) at *3 ("[i]t is still the law of this circuit that 'a certificate of appealability

is required for the appeal of any denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment

in a [28 U.S.C.] § 2254 or [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 proceeding,'" quoting Gonzalez). 

For the reasons set forth in the report and recommendation as adopted by the

court, docs. 851 and 856 (incorporated herein by reference) Defendant is not entitled to

a certificate of appealability as he has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-484,

120 S.Ct. 1595, 1603-04, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880,

893, n. 4, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3394, n. 4, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983). Leave to proceed in

forma pauperis should also be denied. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a). 

Case 4:93-cr-04028-WS-CAS Document 860 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case Nos. 4:93cr4028-WS and 4:05cv443-WS/WCS

It is therefore ORDERED:

A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE, and leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this February 22, 2006.

 /s William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:93-cr-04028-WS-CAS Document 860 Filed 02/22/06 Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SEALED
INDICTMENT
v. CASE No. 3:19cr109/TKW

MICHAEL T. HARRIS

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER OR PRIOR SIMILAR ACTIONS

The United States of America, by Lawrence Keefe, United States Attorney for the
Northern District of Florida, hereby notifies this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule
5.1(F) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Northern District of
Florida, of the existence of a related case which concerns issues of law and facts
common with those of the above-captioned case. ‘The case is United States v. Robert
Pattick Jensen, Case No. 3:19cr108 which was assigned to Senior United States
District Court Judge Roget Vinson.

Respectfully submitted,
LAWRENCE KEEFE,
Qh y

J. RYAN LO

Assistant Unitéd States Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0637920

United States Attorney's Office
21 E. Garden St., Suite 400
Pensacola, FL. 32502-5675

‘Telephone: (850)444-4000
Ryan. love@usdoj.gov