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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:89cr4013-WS

NORMAN SPRATLEY, 4:06cv30-WS

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 406)

docketed July 5, 2006. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's "Notice

of Appeal" be denied as there is nothing to appeal. The defendant has filed no

objections to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record, the court has determined that the report and

recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The defendant's "Notice of Appeal" is hereby DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of August , 2006.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:89-cr-04013-WS-WCS Document 411 Filed 08/04/06 Page 1 of 1
§ 4284.1106 Conflict of interest. ( a ) *General.* A situation in which a person has competing personal, professional, or financial interests that prevents the person from acting impartially.
( b ) *Assistance to employees, relatives, and associates.* The Agency will process any requests for assistance under this subpart in accordance with 7 CFR part 1900, subpart D.
( c ) *Member/Delegate clause.* No member of or delegate to Congress shall receive any share or part of this grant or any benefit that may arise therefrom; but this provision shall not be construed to bar, as a contractor under the grant, a publicly held corporation whose ownership might include a member of Congress.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2494 

To restrict funds related to escalating United States military involvement 

in Syria. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2013 

Mr. GIBSON (for himself, Mr. WELCH, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. NOLAN, Mr. 

DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. DESJARLAIS, and Mr. JONES) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services and Select 

Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To restrict funds related to escalating United States military 

involvement in Syria. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Americans 

5 from the Proliferation of Weapons to Terrorists Act of 

6 2013’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2494 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FUNDS TO ESCALATE UNITED 

2 STATES MILITARY INVOLVEMENT IN SYRIA. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided under sub4 section (b), no funds made available to the Central Intel5 ligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other 

6 agency or entity of the United States involved in intel7 ligence activities may be obligated or expended for the pur8 pose of, or in a manner which would have the effect of, 

9 supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary 

10 operations in Syria by any nation, group, organization, 

11 movement, or individual. 

12 (b) EXCEPTION.—The prohibition under subsection 

13 (a) does not apply to funds obligated for non-lethal hu14 manitarian assistance for the Syrian people provided di15 rectly by the United States Government, through non16 governmental organizations and contractors, or through 

17 foreign governments. 

18 (c) DURATION OF PROHIBITION.—The prohibition 

19 under subsection (a) shall cease to apply only if a joint 

20 resolution approving assistance for military or para21 military operations in Syria is enacted. 

22 (d) QUARTERLY REPORTS.—Not later than 90 days 

23 after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 

24 days thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit to 

25 Congress a report on assistance provided to groups, orga26 nizations, movements, and individuals in Syria. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2494 IH

1 (e) NON-LETHAL HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE DE2 FINED.—In this Act, the term ‘‘non-lethal humanitarian 

3 assistance’’ means humanitarian assistance that is not 

4 weapons, ammunition, or other equipment or material that 

5 is designed to inflict serious bodily harm or death. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION




PURSUANT
TO




SECTION
1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE




I, Alicia B. Derrah, the Vice
President, Accounting Officer and principal financial officer of Man Investments
(USA) Corp., the Managing Member of Man-AHL 130, LLC (“Man-AHL 130”), certify
that (i) the Quarterly Report of Man-AHL 130 on Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Man-AHL 130.








Date:  August
14, 2009








/s/ Alicia
      B. DerrahAlicia
      B. DerrahDirector, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary








E-5
EXHIBIT
31.1





CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION





I, Denise
Smith, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Silver Pearl Enterprises,
Inc.





2. Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we 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 quarterly report is being prepared;





b)
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





c)
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 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 controls 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:
August 13, 2008





/s/ Denise
Smith





Denise
Smith


President
and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.1


 


Non-Employee
Director Compensation Summary


 


Director Compensation


 


The following summarizes
non-employee director compensation commencing with the annual meeting of stockholders
to be held on June 10, 2009:


 


Grant
of Stock Options Upon Appointment.  Each newly elected non-employee director
will receive an option to purchase up to 30,000 shares of our common stock upon
appointment to the board of directors. These options will vest quarterly over
the three years following the grant date, subject to such director’s continued
service on the board of directors.


 


Grant
of Additional Stock Options. Following each annual
meeting of stockholders, each non-employee director who served on our board of
directors during the previous fiscal year and who will continue to serve on the
board of directors following the annual meeting will be granted an option to
purchase up to 15,000 shares of common stock. These options vest quarterly over
the year following the grant date, subject to the non-employee director’s
continued service on the board of directors. 


 


Payment
of Retainer Fee; Reimbursement of Travel and Other Expenses.  In addition to an option
grant, each non-employee director will receive an annual retainer of $30,000
for his or her service on the board of directors. Additional amounts will be
paid as follows:


 


	
  Audit Committee
  Chairperson

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  17,000

  
	
  Audit Committee Members
  (other than the Chairperson)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  8,000

  
	
  Compensation Committee
  Chairperson

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  12,000

  
	
  Compensation Committee
  Members

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  6,000

  
	
  Nominating and
  Corporate Governance Committee Chairperson

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  12,000

  
	
  Nominating and
  Corporate Governance Committee Members

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  6,000

  
	
  Science Committee
  Chairperson

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,000

  
	
  Science Committee
  Members

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  7,500

  
	
  Science Committee,
  Chairperson and Members

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,000 for each all day session attended (up to a
  maximum of $15,000 per year) that is in addition to the standard quarterly
  meetings of the Scientific Committee

  



 


All retainer amounts will be paid quarterly.  Non-employee directors will also receive
reimbursement for reasonable travel and other expenses in connection with
attending meetings of board of directors.
1.102 Statement of guiding principles for the

Federal Acquisition System.

(a) The vision for the Federal Acquisition System is to deliver on a timely basis the best value

product or service to the customer, while maintaining the public’s trust and fulfilling public policy

objectives. Participants in the acquisition process should work together as a team and should be

empowered to make decisions within their area of responsibility.

(b) The Federal Acquisition System will-

(1) Satisfy the customer in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness of the delivered product or service

by, for example-

(i) Maximizing the use of commercial products and commercial services;

(ii) Using contractors who have a track record of successful past performance or who demonstrate a

current superior ability to perform; and

(iii) Promoting competition;

(2) Minimize administrative operating costs;

(3) Conduct business with integrity, fairness, and openness; and

(4) Fulfill public policy objectives.

(c) The Acquisition Team consists of all participants in Government acquisition including not only

representatives of the technical, supply, and procurement communities but also the customers they

serve, and the contractors who provide the products and services.

(d) The role of each member of the Acquisition Team is to exercise personal initiative and sound

business judgment in providing the best value product or service to meet the customer’s needs. In

exercising initiative, Government members of the Acquisition Team may assume if a specific

strategy, practice, policy or procedure is in the best interests of the Government and is not

addressed in the FAR, nor prohibited by law (statute or case law), Executive order or other

regulation, that the strategy, practice, policy or procedure is a permissible exercise of authority.

1.102-1 Discussion.

1.102-2 Performance standards.

1.102-3 Evaluating agency acquisition processes.

1.102-4 Acquisition Team.

1.102-5 Role of the Acquisition Team.

Parent topic: Subpart 1.1 - Purpose, Authority, Issuance
17.206 Evaluation.       (a) 						            In awarding the basic contract, the contracting officer shall, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, evaluate offers for any option quantities or periods contained in a solicitation when it has been determined prior to soliciting offers that the Government is likely to exercise the options. (See 17.208.)                                          (b) 						            The contracting officer need not evaluate offers for any option quantities when it is determined that evaluation would not be in the best interests of the Government and this determination is approved at a level above the contracting officer. An example of a circumstance that may support a determination not to evaluate offers for option quantities is when there is a reasonable certainty that funds will be unavailable to permit exercise of the option.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 17.2 - Options
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00339-CV

Cairo DeAngelis, Appellant

v.

The Arts at Turtle Creek, LLC, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY 

NO. C-1-CV-18-002651, THE HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPERD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s brief was originally due on September 10, 2018. On September 12, 

2018, this Court sent a notice to appellant informing him that his brief was overdue and that a 

failure to file a satisfactory response by September 24, 2018, would result in the dismissal of this 

appeal for want of prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a brief or a motion for extension 

of time. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b).

__________________________________________

Michael Toth, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Field and Toth

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: October 10, 2018
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**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 theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 155 East Tropicana, LLC, a Nevadalimited-liability company and 155 East Tropicana Finance Corp., a Nevadacorporation (collectively, the “Company”) for the three months ended September 30,2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), Neil G. Kiefer, as President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  Neil G. Kiefer      |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |   |
| Neil  G. Kiefer,         |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer |   |
| November 14,  2008  |   |

 

 

The foregoing certificationsare being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and are not being filedas part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

----
C OURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EUGENIO L. RODRIGUEZ

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. **§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§** No. 08

- 21

- 00 146

- C R

Appeal from the

1 09 th District Court

of Andrews County, Texas

(TC# 1 532 )

O R D E R

The Appellant’s brief in the above styled and numbered cause was due December 22, 2021

.

As of the date of this order, no brief or motion for extension of time to file the brief has been filed

with this Court.

It is therefore ORDERED that the trial court conduct a hearing to determine whether

Appellant wishes to continue the appeal and i s entitled to appointment of counsel

. Further, the

trial court shall forward its findings to the District Clerk of Andrews County, Texas, on or

before February 3, 2022

. The District Clerk shall prepare and forward a supplemental clerk’s

record containing the findings and forward the same t o this Court on or before February 13,

2022

. Further, the transcription of the hearing shall be prepared, certified and filed with this Court

on or before February 13, 2022

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 14 th d ay of January

, 20 2 2

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox and Alley , JJ.
Exhibit
                32.2





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
      officer of O2 Secure Wireless, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the “Company”), does
      hereby certify, to the best of her knowledge, that:





1. 
      This Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008 (the
      “Report”) of the Company complies in all material respects with the requirements
      of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      and





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





/s/
      Keith A. Greaves.


Keith A. Greaves, Acting Chief Financial Officer





Date:
      Feburary 17, 2009
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert Edward Groff, Appellant.

Greenblott, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Montgomery County denying appellant’s application for a writ of error *coram nobis*without a hearing. Appellant should have been granted a hearing on his allegations that his retained counsel failed to advise him of his right to appeal *(People*v. *Montgomery,*24 N Y 2d 130; *People*v. *Garrow,*30 A D 2d 618). Order reversed, on the law, and proceedings remitted to the County Court of Montgomery County for the purpose of holding a hearing limited to the question of whether the appellant’s failure to serve and file a timely notice of appeal was attributable to the failure of his retained counsel to advise him of his right to appeal. Reynolds, J. P., Aulisi, Staley, Jr., Cooke and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Greenblott, J.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10281 Conference Calendar

SUNBELT NATIONAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LEWIS T. MOHR, and all other occupants of 7324 Buttonwood, Forth Worth, Texas, 76137; CATHY LYNN MOHR, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CV-958-Y

- - - - - - - - - - June 16, 1998 Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Lewis T. and Cathy Lynn Mohr appeal the district court’s order remanding a forcible-detainer action to the Texas state court, from which the Mohrs had removed the action to federal court. The district court remanded the proceedings, citing both a defect in the remand procedure and a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).No. 97-10281 - 2 -

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), and in accordance with Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca , 516 U.S. 124, 127-28 (1996), this court has no jurisdiction to review a remand order based upon one of the grounds listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Even if the district court was clearly erroneous in finding no jurisdiction, this court cannot review the remand. Tillman v. CSX Transportation Inc. , 929 F.2d 1023, 1028 (5th Cir. 1991); Thermatron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer , 423 U.S. 336, 343 (1976). This court also lacks jurisdiction because the Mohrs’ notice of appeal was untimely filed. See Ryals v. Estelle , 661 F.2d 904, 905 (5th Cir. 1981); F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(a)(1). Accordingly, the Mohrs’ appeal must be DISMISSED. The Mohrs’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal is DENIED as moot.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO PROCEED IFP DENIED.
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. 1:02-cr-00042-MP-AK

EDWARD JOHN HENRY,

Defendant.

___________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant previously filed an amended motion to vacate in this case. Doc. 119. The

Government filed its response, Doc. 126, and Defendant filed a reply. 128. The § 2255 motion

is therefore in a posture for decision.

Presently before the Court is Doc. 132, Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw the Motion to

Vacate. As grounds for withdrawing the § 2255 motion, Defendant maintains that he was

persuaded to file the motion to vacate by a fellow inmate “but now realizes that [he] made a

mistake by doing so” because he “didn’t know that he was risking the possibility of receiving a

lengthier sentence.” Id.

In response, the Government stipulates that Defendant may withdraw his motion with

prejudice and advises him of the “consequences of his request,” namely that the one-year statute

of limitations has expired and that he would be prohibited from filing a second or successive

motion. In short, “Defendant would forever give up, or waive, any argument set forth in his

Case 1:02-cr-00042-MP-GRJ Document 135 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:02-cr-00042-MP-AK

motion.” Doc. 133.

In reply, Defendant “stipulates that if his 2255 is dismissed, he will be forever barred

from filing another 2255.” 

Because Defendant has been fully advised of the consequences of dismissal of his § 2255

motion and stipulates to those consequences, the Court has no hesitation in recommending that

the motion to withdraw be granted.

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That Defendant’s motion to withdraw, Doc. 132, be GRANTED;

That Defendant’s amended motion to vacate, Doc. 119, be DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).

IN CHAMBERS at Gainesville, Florida, this 23rd day of January, 2006.

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 1:02-cr-00042-MP-GRJ Document 135 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 2
#### § 4284.1009 Limitations on awards.

The maximum grant award for an agriculture innovation center shall be in an amount that does not exceed the lesser of $1,000,000 or twice the dollar amount of the resources (in cash or in kind) that the eligible entity demonstrates are available, or have been committed to be made available, to the eligible entity.