alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases.

[Cite as *In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases,*109 Ohio St.3d 411, 2006-Ohio-2394.]

(Submitted May 10, 2006

Decided May 17, 2006.)

{¶ 1} The following dispositions of currently pending appeals are hereby entered based on our decision in *State v. Foster,*109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.

I

{¶ 2} Discretionary appeals are accepted in the following cases, the judgments of the courts of appeals are affirmed as to their holdings regarding the unconstitutionality of Ohio’s criminal-sentencing statutes and reversed as to their holdings that modified the defendant’s sentence, and the causes are remanded to the trial courts for resentencing:

{¶ 3} 2005-2034. *State v. Weber,*Hamilton App. No. C-040820, 2005-Ohio-4854, 2005 WL 2249113.

{¶ 4} 2005-2106. *State v. Sullivan-Griggs,*Hamilton App. No. C-040853.

II

{¶ 5} Discretionary appeals are accepted in the following cases, the judgments of the courts of appeals are reversed, and the causes are remanded to the trial courts for resentencing. If propositions of law are noted, such reversals apply only to those portions of the judgments of the courts of appeals as are implicated by the applicable propositions of law:

{¶ 6} 2006-0182. *State v. Lyles,*Allen App. No. 1-04-63, 2005-Ohio-6860, 2005 WL 3526709.

{¶ 7} 2006-0188. *State v. Taylor,*Licking App. No. 05-CA-34, 2005-Ohio-6701, 2005 WL 3475723.

*412{¶ 8} 2006-0192. *State v. Bulgin,*Lorain App. No. 05CA008697, 2005-Ohio-6734, 2005 WL 3483461.

{¶ 9} 2006-0208. *State v. Dykes,*Cuyahoga App. No. 86148, 2005-Ohio-6636, 2005 WL 3436338. Accepted on Proposition of Law Nos. II and III.

{¶ 10} 2006-0224. *State v. Simmons,*Lake App. No. 2004-L-131, 2005-Ohio-6706, 2005 WL 3476646.

{¶ 11} 2006-0225. *State v. Detlor,*Union App. No. 14-04-29, 2005-Ohio-6695, 2005 WL 3455139.

{¶ 12} 2006-0231. *State v. Cottrell,*Columbiana App. No. 04 CO 53, 2005-Ohio-6923, 2005 WL 3536472. Accepted on Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 13} 2006-0233. *State v. Nolan,*Warren App. No. CA2005-05-062. Accepted on Proposition of Law No. II.

{¶ 14} 2006-0274. *State v. Simmons,*Lake App. No. 2004-L-154, 2005-Ohio-6896, 2005 WL 3528884.

{¶ 15} 2006-0306. *State v. McDowell,*Franklin App. No. 03AP-1187, 2005-Ohio-6959, 2005 WL 3550824.

{¶ 16} 2006-0317. *State v. Haverland,*Hamilton App. No. C-050119, 2005-Ohio-6997, 2005 WL 3557400. Accepted on Proposition of Law No. II.

{¶ 17} 2006-0342. *State v. Bryant,*Cuyahoga App. No. 85836, 2005-Ohio-6358, 2005 WL 3215195. Accepted on Proposition of Law No. VIII.

{¶ 18} 2006-0381. *State v. Phipps,*Cuyahoga App. No. 86133, 2006 WL 62490. Accepted on Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 19} 2006-0385. *State v. Kendrick,*Montgomery App. No. 20965, 2006-Ohio-311, 2006 WL 202141. Accepted on Proposition of Law No. V.
§ 4284.940 Processing applications. ( a ) *Initial review.* Upon receipt of an application on or before the application submission deadline for each Fiscal Year, the Agency will conduct a review to determine if the Applicant and project are eligible, and if the application is complete and sufficiently responsive to program requirements.
( b ) *Notifications.* After the review in paragraph (a) of this section has been conducted, if the Agency has determined that either the Applicant or project is ineligible or that the application is not complete to allow evaluation of the application or sufficiently responsive to program requirements, the Agency will notify the Applicant in writing and will include in the notification the reason(s) for its determination(s).
( c ) *Resubmittal by Applicants.* Applicants may submit revised applications to the Agency in response to the notification received under paragraph (b) of this section. If a revised grant application is received on or before the application deadline, it will be processed by the Agency. If a revised application is not received by the specified application deadline, the Agency will not process the application and will inform the Applicant that their application was not reviewed due to tardiness.
( d ) *Subsequent ineligibility determinations.* If at any time an application is determined to be ineligible, the Agency will notify the Applicant in writing of its determination.
§ 3565.401 Servicing objectives. The participating lender is responsible for servicing the guaranteed loan throughout the term of the loan or guarantee, whichever is less. In all cases, the lender remains responsible for liquidation of the property in accordance with the Loan Note Agreement, unless otherwise determined by the Agency. A lender-servicing plan must be designed and implemented to achieve the following objectives. ( a ) To preserve the value of the loan and the real estate;
( b ) To avoid a loss to the lender or the Agency and to limit exposure to potential loss;
( c ) To protect the interests of the tenants; and
( d ) To further program objectives.
§ 3565.105 Lender compliance. A lender will remain an approved lender unless terminated by the Agency. To maintain approval, the lender must comply with the following requirements. ( a ) Maintain eligibility in accordance with §§ 3565.102 and 3565.103;
( b ) Comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and procedures;
( c ) Inform the Agency of any material change in the lender's staffing, policies and procedures, or corporate structure;
( d ) Cooperate fully with all program or Agency monitoring and auditing policies and procedures, including the Agency's annual audit of approved lenders; and
( e ) Maintain active participation in the multifamily guaranteed loan program by initiating a new loan guarantee or holding a loan guaranteed under this program.
#### § 29.6035 Side.

A certain phase of quality as contrasted with some other phase of quality or any peculiar characteristic of tobacco.
Kevin Schlemmer 

EAS and Domestic Analysis Division 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Mr. Schlemmer: 

677 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 1016 

Honolulu, Hawai'i 96816 

Thursday, 12 March 2014 

I wholeheartedly support Makani Kai Air Charter's bid to continue providing scheduled 

air service to Kalaupapa on the island ofMoloka'i. I am the physician who regularly 

travels to Kalaupapa to serve my patients there. Makani Kai Air Charters has flown me to 

Moloka'i for years now, first on their charters, and for the past 2 years on their scheduled 

flights, and I have found their service to be excellent and reliable. 

During the ten years I have served the patients there as faculty of the University of 

Hawai'i School of Medicine, I have flown to Kalaupapa with several other companies, 

and in my opinion Makani Kai Air Charters is the best offering service to that destination. 

The pilots are professionals and the aircraft are maintained in fine condition. 

Richard Schuman, the owner of Makani Kai, is dedicated to excellent customer service, 

and that philosophy is evident in the company's daily operations. This fme company 

should receive your every consideration for providing essential air service to Kalaupapa. 

Thank you for your time and attention! 

s~c re~u'&z_ad . Kalani Brady, MD, MPH, F 1J 

Associate Professor, Department ofNative Hawaiian Health 

Department of Medicine 

University ofHawai'i John A. Bums School of Medicine
§ 360.302 Consideration of applications for permits to move noxious weeds. Upon the receipt of an application made in accordance with § 360.301 for a permit for movement of a noxious weed into the United States or interstate, the Administrator will consider the application on its merits. ( a ) *Consultation.* The Administrator may consult with other Federal agencies or entities, States or political subdivisions of States, national governments, local governments in other nations, domestic or international organizations, domestic or international associations, and other persons for views on the danger of noxious weed dissemination into the United States, or interstate, in connection with the proposed movement.
( b ) *Inspection of premises.* The Administrator may inspect the site where noxious weeds are proposed to be handled in connection with or after their movement under permit to determine whether existing or proposed facilities will be adequate to prevent noxious weed dissemination if a permit is issued.
[75 FR 68954, Nov. 10, 2010]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 3:20-cr-37-MCR

GARRY A. CARR

 a/k/a “Gary A. Carr”

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. 

R. Crim. P., and has entered a plea of guilty to Count One of the indictment. After 

cautioning and examining the Defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects 

mentioned in Rule 11, I determined the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and 

the offense charged is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of 

the essential elements thereof. I therefore recommend the plea of guilty be accepted 

and the Defendant be adjudicated guilty and have sentence imposed accordingly.

Dated: August 31, 2020.

/s/ Hope Thai Cannon HOPE THAI CANNON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00037-MCR Document 21 Filed 08/31/20 Page 1 of 2
3:20-cr-37-MCR

Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed 

within twenty-four (24) hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different 

deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use 

only, and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon the 

magistrate judge and all other parties. A party failing to object to a magistrate 

judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and 

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See U.S. Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 

3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case 3:20-cr-00037-MCR Document 21 Filed 08/31/20 Page 2 of 2
# L_2021382EN.01005701.xml

| 28.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 382/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 382/57

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/616 of 13 April 2021 amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for benalaxyl, benalaxyl-M, dichlobenil, fluopicolide, proquinazid and pyridalyl in or on certain products

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 131 of 16 April 2021
  )

Between pages 17 and 29, in eight separate instances:

for:

‘[Office of Publication: please insert date 2 years after publication]’,

read:

‘
  16 April 2023
  ’

---
Editorial Note on Part 3415
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3415 appear at 76 FR 4811, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3415.1 Applicability of regulations. ( a ) The regulations of this part apply to research grants awarded under the authority of section 1668 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, (7 U.S.C. 5921). Grants awarded under this section will support biotechnology risk assessment research to help address concerns about the effects of introducing certain biotechnology products into the environment and to help regulators develop policies concerning the introduction of such products. Taking into consideration any determinations made through consultations with such entities as the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Agricultural Biotechnology, and the Agricultural Biotechnology Research Advisory Committee, the Director of NIFA and Administrator of ARS shall determine and announce, through publication of a Notice in such publications as the Federal Register, professional trade journals, agency or program handbooks, the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, or any other appropriate means, specific areas of research for which preproposals or proposals will be solicited and the extent that funds are available therefor.
( b ) The regulations of this part do not apply to grants awarded by the Department of Agriculture under any other authority.
June 24, 2015 

Mr. Chris Woodbury 

UTC Aerospace - HMTF 

P.O. Box 1218 

Hurricane, UT 84737 

Dear Mr. Woodbury: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Cannot Process Your Request 

We entered your exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA−2015−1396) on 

May 5, 2015, but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent 

does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the 

request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division 

Enclosure
================================================================================

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  Driftwood  Ventures,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 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.


Date:  May 15, 2007


/s/ Steven Chan
-------------------------------------------
Steven Chan, President and C.E.O.
(Principal Executive Officer)
Subpart 2.2 - Definitions Clause

Parent topic: Part 2 - Definitions of Words and Terms

2.201 Contract clause.

Insert the clause at 52.202-1, Definitions, in solicitations and contracts that exceed the simplified

acquisition threshold.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41267 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARCIANO MARIANO SERVIN-TERRAZAS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-313-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Marciano Mariano Servin-Terrazas raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 234

For the relief of Majan Jean. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2005

Mr. DODD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

For the relief of Majan Jean.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MAJAN 

4 JEAN. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Majan Jean shall be eligible for issuance of an immi8 grant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an alien 

9 lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing an 

10 application for issuance of an immigrant visa under sec11 tion 204 of that Act or for adjustment of status to lawful 

12 permanent resident. 
2

•S 234 IS 

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Majan Jean enters 

2 the United States before the filing deadline specified in 

3 subsection (c), Majan Jean shall be considered to have en4 tered and remained lawfully and shall be eligible for ad5 justment of status under section 245 of the Immigration 

6 and Nationality Act as of the date of enactment of this 

7 Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.—

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Majan Jean, the Secretary of State shall instruct 

16 the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current or 

17 next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 

18 visas that are made available to natives of the country of 

19 birth of Majan Jean under section 203(a) of the Immigra20 tion and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number 

21 of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of 

22 the country of birth of Majan Jean under section 202(e) 

23 of that Act.

Æ
# Annual ORR Reports to Congress

Listen

Current as of:June 14, 2018

##       Introduction  

Expand

**Office of Refugee Resettlement - Annual Reports to Congress**

- 2020
- 2019
- 2018
- 2017
- 2016
- 2015
- 2014  - For questions about accessibility options for this document, please  contact ORR .
- 2013
- 2012
- 2011
- 2010
- 2009
- 2008
- 2007
- 2006
- 2005

Archived Reports 2004 - 1980
Second Amendment of Apogee Enterprises, Inc.



 Exhibit 10.6 
 SECOND AMENDMENT 
 OF 
 APOGEE ENTERPRISES, INC. 
 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
 FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS 
 (2005
Restatement) 
 The “APOGEE ENTERPRISES, INC. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS” as adopted by APOGEE ENTERPRISES, INC., a
Minnesota corporation, and first effective January 31, 1998, and as amended and restated in a document entitled “Apogee Enterprises, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors (2005 Restatement)” effective
January 1, 2005 and as amended by prior amendment is hereby further amended in the following respects: 
 1. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SHARES AVAILABLE.
Effective as of the date this Amendment is adopted, Section 5.1 of the Plan Statement is amended to read in full as follows: 
 5.1. Maximum
Number of Shares Available. The maximum number of shares of Common Stock that will be available for issuance under this Plan will be 155,000 shares, subject to any adjustments made in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.2. The
shares of Common Stock available for issuance under this Plan shall be authorized but unissued shares. 
 2. SAVINGS CLAUSE. Save and except as herein
expressly amended, the Plan Statement shall continue in full force and effect. 
  

							
	May 4, 2009	 	APOGEE ENTERPRISES, INC.
				
		 		 	By	 	 /s/ Russell Huffer

		 		 		 	Its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:94-cr-01011-MP-AK

EVERETTE JAMEL TAYLOR,

Defendant.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 985, Motion for Reconsideration, filed by

Defendant Everette Taylor, which seeks reconsideration of the order denying Defendant’s

motion to reduce his sentence. Since Defendant’s sentence is mandated by statute, and his Total

Offense Level did not change under the amended Sentencing Guidelines, the Court finds that

Defendant is not entitled to any reduction of his sentence. Therefore, Defendant’s motion for

reconsideration is denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of June, 2008

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:94-cr-01011-MP-AK Document 986 Filed 06/17/08 Page 1 of 1
f8k021709ex10i_attdrinks.htm


     

    
       

       

      Exhibit
10.1      Allonge No. 1 to Secured Note Issued
January 27, 2009

      


       

      
 

      ALLONGE NO. 1 TO SECURED
NOTE ISSUED JANUARY 27, 2009

      


      


      This
Allonge No. 1 to Secured Note (“Allonge”) is made as of this 17th day of
February, 2009, by Attitude Drinks Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”) to
Alpha Capital Anstalt (“Lender”).  Reference is hereby made to that
certain Secured Note issued by Borrower to Lender dated January 27, 2009
(“Note”).  Except as amended hereby, the terms of the Note remain as
originally stated.

      


      The
Principal Amount as stated on the face of the Note shall be increased by $60,000
(original issue discount) to $120,000.00.  Interest on the increased
portion of the Principal Amount shall accrue from the date of this
Allonge.  The amendment to the Principal Amount due and owing on the
Note described herein notwithstanding, Lender does not waive interest that may
have accrued at a default rate of interest and liquidated damages, if any, that
may have accrued on the Note through the date of this Allonge, which default
interest and liquidated damages, if any, remain outstanding and
payable.

      


      IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Allonge is executed as of the date written
above.

      


      ATTITUDE
DRINKS INC.

      


      By:
____________________________________

      Name:

      Title:
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:03cr56-RH/WCS

JOSEPH MICHAEL WYMAN,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISCHARGE RESTITUTION

Defendant Joseph Michael Wyman’s letter to the clerk of the court dated

May 9, 2005 (document 176), by which Mr. Wyman seeks “discharge” of his

obligation to make restitution is deemed a motion to amend the judgment to delete

the requirement for restitution. The motion is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED this 1st day of June, 2005.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00056-RH-AK Document 177 Filed 06/01/05 Page 1 of 1