alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 3300.55 Termination of approval.

An approved testing laboratory may at any time withdraw as an approved testing laboratory by written notice to the Administrator. Similarly, the Administrator may suspend or terminate for cause the approved status of a testing laboratory by written notice to the organization, setting forth the reasons for such action. Examples of causes for suspension or termination of approval would be a change in equipment or operations at the laboratory which would render it incapable of performing tests according to the standards in the ATP, or noncompliance of the laboratory with pertinent portions of this rule.
H. R. 2591 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To amend certain provisions of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ROLLOVER OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN AIRLINE CARRIER 

BANKRUPTCY. 

(a) EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE CLAIM FOR REFUND.—Section 

1106(a)(3) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (26 

U.S.C. 408 note) is amended by striking ‘‘2013’’ and inserting ‘‘2015’’. 

(b) DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.—Section 1106(c) of such 

Act is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1)(A)(i) by inserting ‘‘or filed on November 

29, 2011,’’ after ‘‘2007,’’; and 

(2) in paragraph (2)(B)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘terminated or’’ and inserting ‘‘terminated,’’; and 

(B) by inserting ‘‘, or was frozen effective November 

1, 2012’’ after ‘‘Pension Protection Act of 2006’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Bruce Wasserstein, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2006 of Lazard Group LLC (the Registrant);

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

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

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

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;

(b) [Reserved]

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

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

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 7, 2006



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|                                                      
|/s/    Bruce Wasserstein                              
|Bruce Wasserstein Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
```

[108th Congress Public Law 294]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ294.108]

[[Page 118 STAT. 1089]]

Public Law 108-294
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To redesignate the facilities of the United States Postal Service 
 located at 7715 and 7748 S. Cottage Grove Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, 
   as the ``James E. Worsham Post Office'' and the ``James E. Worsham 
         Carrier Annex Building'', respectively, and for other 
            purposes. <<NOTE: Aug. 9, 2004 -  [H.R. 3340]>> 

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

SECTION 1. JAMES E. WORSHAM POST OFFICE.

    (a) Redesignation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 7715 S. Cottage Grove Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, shall be 
known and designated as the ``James E. Worsham 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 this section shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``James E. 
Worsham Post Office''.

SEC. 2. JAMES E. WORSHAM CARRIER ANNEX BUILDING.

    (a) Redesignation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 7748 S. Cottage Grove Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, shall be 
known and designated as the ``James E. Worsham Carrier Annex Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in this section shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``James E. 
Worsham Carrier Annex Building''.

    Approved August 9, 2004.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3340:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,
                                                        Vol. 150 (2004):
            July 6, considered and passed House.
            July 22, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 5:88cr4017-WS

DARYL LAMAR GILYARD, 4:05cv159-WS

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 139)

docketed May 20, 2005. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's

motion to vacate sentence (doc. 136) be dismissed as untimely. The defendant has

filed no objections to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record, the court has determined that the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation must be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 139) is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

Case 4:88-cr-04017-WS-WCS Document 146 Filed 07/18/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:88cr4017-WS

2. The defendant's motion to vacate under section 2255 is hereby summarily

DISMISSED as untimely.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall close Case No.

5:05cv159-WS.

DONE AND ORDERED this July 18, 2005.

 /s William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:88-cr-04017-WS-WCS Document 146 Filed 07/18/05 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING

56 Forsyth Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

David J. Smith

Clerk of Court 

September 27, 2021

For rules and forms 

visit

www.ca11.uscourts.gov

Clerk - Northern District of Florida

U.S. District Court 

100 N PALAFOX ST

PENSACOLA, FL 32502

Appeal Number: 21-12624-AA

Case Style: Kent Hovind, et al v. USA, et al

District Court Docket No: 3:20-cv-05484-TKW-MJF

The enclosed copy of the Clerk's Entry of Dismissal for failure to prosecute in the abovereferenced appeal is issued as the mandate of this court. See 11th Cir. R. 41-4. Pursuant to 11th 

Cir. R. 42-2(c) and 42-3(c), when an appellant fails to timely file or correct a brief or appendix, 

the appeal shall be treated as dismissed on the first business day following the due date. This 

appeal was treated as dismissed on 09/21/2021.

Eleventh Circuit Rules 42-2(e) and 42-3(e) govern motions to set aside dismissal and remedy 

the default. Such motions must be filed within 14 days of the date the clerk issues the Entry of 

Dismissal. Except as otherwise provided by FRAP 25(a) for inmate filings, a motion to set aside 

dismissal and remedy the default is not timely unless the clerk receives the motion within the 

time fixed for filing. See FRAP 25(a)(2)(A)(i).

Sincerely,

DAVID J. SMITH, Clerk of Court

Reply to: T. L. Searcy, AA

Phone #: (404) 335-6180

Enclosure(s)

DIS-2CIV Letter and Entry of Dismissal

USCA11 Case: 21-12624 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 1 of 2

Case 3:20-cv-05484-TKW-MJF Document 40 Filed 09/27/21 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

______________

No. 21-12624-AA

______________ 

KENT E. HOVIND, 

PAUL JOHN HANSEN, 

as Trustee for Creation Science Evangelism 

(CSE) a Non Statutory Trust,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

MARGARET CATHARINE RODGERS, 

THE ESTATE OF JOHN DAVID ROY ATCHISON, 

MICHELLE MCCAIN HELDMYER, 

SCOTT SCHNEIDER, 

ALAN STUART RICHEY, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

__________________________________________

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL: Pursuant to the 11th Cir.R. 42-2(c), this appeal is DISMISSED for 

want of prosecution because the appellant Paul John Hansen and Kent E. Hovind failed to file a 

CORRECTED (complete) brief and appendix within the time fixed by the rules, effective 

September 27, 2021. 

DAVID J. SMITH

Clerk of Court of the United States Court

of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

by: T. L. Searcy, AA, Deputy Clerk

FOR THE COURT - BY DIRECTION 

USCA11 Case: 21-12624 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 2 of 2

Case 3:20-cv-05484-TKW-MJF Document 40 Filed 09/27/21 Page 2 of 2
§ 30.37 Class 2; fire-cured types and groups. ( a ) *Type 21.* That kind of fire-cured tobacco commonly known as Virginia Fire-cured, or Dark-fired, produced principally in the Piedmont and mountain sections of Virginia.
( b ) *Type 22.* That type of fire-cured tobacco, known as Eastern District Fire-cured, produced principally in a section east of the Tennessee River in southern Kentucky and northern Tennessee.
( c ) *Type 23.* That type of fire-cured tobacco, known as Western District Fire-cured or Dark-fired, produced principally in a section west of the Tennessee River in Kentucky and extending into Tennessee.
Groups applicable to types 21, 22, and 23: A—Wrappers. B—Heavy Leaf. C—Thin Leaf. X—Lugs. N—Nondescript, as defined. S—Scrap, as defined.
J

- S32029

- 17

NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant

v.

KRISTEN HORN
Appellee No. 2183 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered June 10 , 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No: CP

- 51

- CR

- 0012270

- 2015

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., STABILE, and FITZGERALD, * JJ.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.: FILED DECEMBER 21, 2017
Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the June
10, 2016 order dismissing charges against Appellee Kristen Horn. We vacate

and remand.
The trial court summarized the pertinent fact s and procedural history:
On November 17, 2015, [Appellee] was stopped due to having significant damage to her vehicle’s windows and using cloth to cover up said damage. When the vehicle was stopped, [Appellee] was sitting in the passenger seat while so meone with a suspended license was in the driver’s seat. Due to this traffic violation, the police officer then began to effectuate a live stop. As a result of being ordered out of the car to effect this live stop, a silver revolver with a black grip bec ame visible from under the passenger seat as [Appellee] exited the vehicle. [Appellee] was both issued a traffic violation report (TVR), for allowing her vehicle to be driven by an unlicensed driver, and arrested for the alleged Violation of the Uniform F irearms Act (VUFA). During the

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.J

- S32029

- 17

- 2

-

pendency of the VUFA charges, an adjudication for the traffic violation was held on January 19, 2016, in which [Appellee] was found not guilty in absentia.
Trial Court Opinion, 8/11/16, at 1

- 2.

The trial court dismissed the remaining charges against Appellee under

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110 because they arose out of the same criminal episode and
occurred within the same judicial district as the traffic violation for which
Appellee was found guilty in absentia. Indeed, § 110 norm ally bars a
subsequent prosecution where a former prosecution, arising out of the same
facts or criminal episode, resulted in an acquittal or conviction in the same
judicial district. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110(1)(ii). In Commonwealth v. Perfetto ,
169 A.3d 1114 (Pa. Super. 2017)( en banc ), however, this Court delineated an

exception to § 110’s compulsory joinder requirement unique to Philadelphia

County. Under Perfetto , a former prosecution for a summary traffic offense
within the jurisdiction of the traffic divi sion of the Philadelphia Municipal Court
does not bar a subsequent prosecution arising out of the same facts or criminal
episode. In light of Perfetto , the trial court erred in dismissing the DUI
charges under § 110. We therefore vacate and remand for fu rther
proceedings.
Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.J

- S32029

- 17

- 3

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 12/21/2017
#### Town of Oyster Bay, Appellant, v New York Telephone Company, Respondent.

an action to permanently enjoin defendant from (1) erecting utility poles and (2) removing any town-owned trees, without the approval of its superintendent of highways, the Town of Oyster Bay appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 12, 1979, which denied its motion for a preliminary injunction. Appeal dismissed as academic, with $50 costs and disbursements. Since Special Term and this court denied plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction, defendant has lawfully erected the poles in controversy. An injunction will not issue to prohibit a *fait accompli*(see *Katz v Hoe & Co.,*278 App Div 766, mot for lv to app den 302 NY 949, cert den 342 US 886; 7A Weinstein-KornMiller, NY Civ Prac, par 6301.15). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Margett, JJ., concur.
#### §§ 4279.169-4279.172 [Reserved]
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JESSE E. MOODY, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-366-AW-MAF

CHRISTOPHER EDELEN, et al., 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Through his September 21, 2020, report and recommendation (ECF No. 8), 

the magistrate judge recommends dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to 

comply with a court order. The magistrate judge earlier granted leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis and ordered Plaintiff to submit a partial filing fee of $1.30. ECF No. 

7. The same order, though, provided that “[if] Plaintiff contends that insufficient

funds exist with which to pay the assessed initial partial filing fee, Plaintiff must 

submit a current Trust Fund Account Statement demonstrating how funds have been 

depleted and a motion requesting permission to proceed without payment of the 

assessed fee.” ECF No. 7. Plaintiff did not timely submit the $1.30, and he did not 

submit a current statement or move for permission to proceed without payment of 

the assessed fee. In short, he did not comply with the magistrate judge’s order. And 

the magistrate judge made clear that failure to comply would lead to his 

recommending dismissal, ECF No. 7 at 4, which is what happened, ECF No. 8. 

Case 4:20-cv-00366-AW-MAF Document 11 Filed 10/20/20 Page 1 of 2
2

Plaintiff has filed objections, ECF No. 9, which I have considered de novo. 

The gist of the objection is that Plaintiff expected his father would pay the filing fee. 

But no payment has been received. The Plaintiff’s objections are overruled, and the 

report and recommendation is adopted and incorporated into this order. 

The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “This case is dismissed for failure 

to comply with a court order.” The clerk will then close the file. 

SO ORDERED on October 20, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00366-AW-MAF Document 11 Filed 10/20/20 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7901

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIE L. BOSTON, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-99-98, CA-00-962)

Submitted: March 12, 2003 Decided: March 27, 2003

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie L. Boston, III, Appellant Pro Se. OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie L. Boston, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s

May 31, 2002, order and judgment accepting the magistrate judge’s

May 2, 2001, report and recommendation and denying relief on

Boston’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and the district court’s

October 21, 2002, order denying Boston’s motion for reconsideration

and non-publication. We have independently reviewed the record and

cannot conclude that reasonable jurists would find the district

court’s rulings debatable. Accordingly, we grant Boston’s pending

motion for non-publication of this Court’s opinion, deny a

certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c) (2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 2003 WL

431659, at *11 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003). 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 in the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Page 1 of 2 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 PENSACOLA DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. Case Nos.: 3:99cr18/RV/EMT 

 3:20cv5717/RV/EMT 

KENNETH BERNARD NICKSON, 

Fed. Reg. No. 04493-017 

 / 

ORDER

 The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on August 

12, 2020 (ECF No. 279). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and 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 all 

timely filed objections. 

 Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed 

objections thereto (doc. 281), I have determined the Report and Recommendation 

should be adopted. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 

 1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 

279) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order. 

Case 3:99-cr-00018-RV-EMT Document 282 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2 

Case Nos.: 3:99cr18/RV/EMT; 3:20cv5717/RV/EMT 

 2. The “Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct 

Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody” (ECF No. 278) is summarily DENIED 

and DISMISSED without prejudice. 

 3. The certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of September, 2020. 

 /s/ Roger Vinson 

 ROGER VINSON 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:99-cr-00018-RV-EMT Document 282 Filed 09/10/20 Page 2 of 2
#### § 29.2620 Rule 4.

All standard grades must be clean.
Exhibit
      32.1





***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 quarterly report of Sputnik, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the
      capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(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 results of operations of the Company.




/s/
      David LaDuke


Name: David
      LaDuke


Title: President,
      Chief Executive Officer, and


Treasurer








August
      4,
      2006











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













I-2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:98cr126-01/LAC

JEFFREY THERCY

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on July 28, 2009 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION for Retroactive Application of Sentencing Guidelines to Crack

Cocaine Offense 18 USC 3582 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 7/22/2009 Doc.# 307

RESPONSES:

 UNITED STATES on 7/28/2009 Doc.# 308

 DEFENDANT PRO SE on 8/13/2009 Doc.# 311

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 8 day of

th

September, 2009, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) The defendant’s sentencing range as to Counts 1 and 2 (360 months to Life

imprisonment) is unchanged after considering Amendments 706, 711 and 715.

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge