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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:98cr46-RH 

4:07cv437-RH/WCS

CLAUDE LOUIS DUBOC,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING § 2255 MOTION

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

recommendation. (Document 450.) No objections have been filed. The report and

recommendation is correct in all respects and is adopted as the opinion of the court,

with this additional note.

One of the defendant Claude Louis DuBoc’s assertions is that the sentence

in this case was improperly made consecutive to the life sentence in a separate

case. Mr. DuBoc relies on 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). Under that statute, consecutive

sentences cannot be imposed “for an attempt and for another offense that was the

sole objective of the attempt.” But the conviction in the case at bar was for

Case 4:98-cr-00046-RH-WCS Document 451 Filed 01/21/09 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No: 4:98cr46-RH and 4:07cv438-RH/WCS

conspiracy, not for an attempt, and more fundamentally, it was not for a conspiracy

or attempt to commit the offense that was the subject of the other conviction. 

Mr. DuBoc was sentenced in this case for conspiracy to tamper with a

witness. He was convicted in the other case not for tampering with a witness—the

object of the conspiracy in the case at bar—but for conspiracy to import marijuana

and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments. See United States v. DuBoc, No.

1:94cr1009 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 1998) at 1 (unpublished Judgment in a Criminal

Case). The § 3584(a) restriction on consecutive sentences does not apply in these

circumstances.

To be sure, the witness with whom Mr. DuBoc conspired to tamper was a

witness in the other case. But that does not preclude the imposition of consecutive

sentences. Indeed, if one could tamper with a witness with no possibility of a

consecutive sentence, a guilty defendant would have little reason not to try it. 

As a matter of discretion, I chose to impose a consecutive sentence in this

case. Mr. DuBoc’s challenge to the consecutive sentence is procedurally barred for

the reasons set forth in the report and recommendation. And the challenge would

fail on the merits anyway. The consecutive sentence was fully consistent with

§ 3584(a).

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

Case 4:98-cr-00046-RH-WCS Document 451 Filed 01/21/09 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No: 4:98cr46-RH and 4:07cv438-RH/WCS

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED. The clerk must enter

judgment stating, “The defendant’s motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(document 443) is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.” The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on January 21, 2009.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:98-cr-00046-RH-WCS Document 451 Filed 01/21/09 Page 3 of 3
."!:"·,· 

SERVED: February 11, 2014 _, . --., ~--,. 

: _; ~ :1 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

Kenneth Santodomingo 

DOCKET NO. FAA 2014-0407 

(Civil Penalty Action). 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") filed a Motion to Deem 

Allegations Admitted and Motion for Decision (hereinafter "Motion for Decision") dated 

October 2, 2014. In its Motion for Decision, the FAA avers it issued a Final Notice of 

Civil Penalty (hereinafter "FNPCP) to Kenneth Santodomingo (hereinafter 

"Respondent") on June 16,2014. 

The FAA further avers Respondent filed a Request for Hearing dated June 24, 

2014. On June 30,2014, the FAA filed its Complaint. The FAA avers the Respondent 

has failed to file an Answer to the Complaint. 

We served our Procedural Order on July 29, 2014. We served an Amended 

Procedural Order on October 10, 2014. Respondent has failed to file responses to our 

Procedural Orders and failed to respond to the FAA's Motion for Decision. 

WHEREFORE, it be and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

1. On or before March 6, 2015, Respondent shall file a response to this Order 

stating why the relief requested in the Agency's Motion should not be granted; and 

2. On or before March 6, 2015, Respondent shall answer the Complaint; and 

3. On or before March 6, 2015, Respondent shall fully comply with our 

Procedural Orders; and 
4. Absent full and complete responses to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 hereinabove, 

Respondent may be sanctioned including, but not limited to, allegations in the Complaint 

may be deemed admitted; and/or Respondent may be precluded from introducing any 

evidence at the hearing other than his own testimony; and/or Respondent's Request for 

Hearing may be dismissed; and/or a Default Judgment may be entered against 

Respondent in the full amount of the fine requested by the Agency in its Complaint. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

2 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Kenneth Santodomingo, Respondent 

Reg. No. 45762-177 

P.O. Box 9000 

. Seagoville, TX 75159-9000 

ONE COPY 

Gregory S. Lander, Complainant's Counsel 

Safety Enforcement Branch 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd. 

Fort Worth, TX 76137-0007 

TEL: 817-222-5083 

FAX: 817-222-5945 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0407 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

3
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.14

                                 ADDENDUM TO THE

                                CHOICEPOINT INC.

                           2003 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN

      This Addendum to the ChoicePoint Inc. 2003 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the
"Plan") is made as of the 20th day of December, 2004, pursuant to resolutions
adopted by the Management Compensation Committee of ChoicePoint, Inc. (the
"Company"), and the provisions of Section 22 of the Plan.

1.          PURPOSE. The purpose of this Addendum is to amend those provisions
      of the Plan which are required to be amended in order for grants made
      under the Plan, and communications concerning those grants, to be made
      pursuant to an "employee share scheme" and thereby to be exempt from
      provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (United
      Kingdom), with respect solely to grants made to residents of the United
      Kingdom. This Addendum shall not apply to any other grants made under the
      Plan.

2.          RESTRICTED AVAILABILITY OF GRANTS. Any grants made pursuant to this
      Addendum shall be made only to officers and employees of the group of
      companies of which the Company is a member, and shall be payable only in
      Common Shares of the Company's stock.

3.          DEFINITION OF FAMILY MEMBER. For purposes of grants made pursuant
      to this Addendum, "Family Members" shall mean a Participant's children and
      step-children under the age of eighteen, spouses and surviving spouses.

4.          INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF PLAN. For purposes of
      grants made pursuant to this Addendum, subparagraph (l) of Section 4, and
      the entireties of Sections 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 23 of the
      Plan are not applicable to said grants.

5.          INCORPORATION OF REMAINING PLAN PROVISIONS. With the exception of
      the provisions noted above, the provisions of the Plan will apply or be
      available to all grants made pursuant to this Addendum.

                                      CHOICEPOINT INC.

                                      By: /s/ Steven W. Surbaugh
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Title:  Chief Financial Officer
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T22:25:37-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2388 

AN ACT 

To take certain Federal lands located in El Dorado County, 

California, into trust for the benefit of the Shingle 

Springs Band of Miwok Indians, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2388 EH

1 SECTION 1. LAND INTO TRUST FOR THE SHINGLE SPRINGS 

2 BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The land described in subsection 

4 (b) is hereby taken into trust for the benefit of the Shingle 

5 Springs Band of Miwok Indians, subject to valid existing 

6 rights and management agreements related to easements 

7 and rights-of-way. 

8 (b) LAND DESCRIPTION.—The land taken into trust 

9 pursuant to subsection (a) is the approximately 40.852 

10 acres of Federal land under the administrative jurisdiction 

11 of the Bureau of Land Management identified as ‘‘Con12 veyance boundary’’ on the map titled ‘‘Shingle Springs 

13 Land Conveyance/Draft’’ and dated June 7, 2012, includ14 ing improvements and appurtenances thereto. 

15 (c) GAMING.—Class II and class III gaming under 

16 the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et 

17 seq.) shall not be permitted at any time on the land taken 

18 into trust pursuant to subsection (a). 

Passed the House of Representatives December 3, 

2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2388 

AN ACT 

To take certain Federal lands located in El Dorado 

for other purposes. the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, and County, California, into trust for the benefit of
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Angelo Clark v. Carla Clark

Appellate case number: 01-13-00577-CV

Trial court case number: 2012-69700

Trial court: 257th District Court of Harris County

On August 13, 2013, appellant, Angelo Clark, filed an affidavit of indigence in this Court 

in the above referenced appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(a). No contest to the affidavit has been 

filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(f). Accordingly, the allegations in the affidavit are deemed true, 

and appellant is entitled to proceed without advance payment of costs. Id.

The Clerk of this Court is ORDERED to make an entry in this Court’s records that 

appellant is indigent and is allowed to proceed on appeal without advance payment of costs.

It is further ORDERED that the District Clerk file with this Court, within 30 days of the 

date of this order and at no cost to appellant, a clerk’s record containing the items specified in the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 34.5(a). See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(j).

It is further ORDERED that the Court Reporter file with this Court, within 30 days of 

the date of this order and at no cost to appellant, the reporter’s record in accordance with Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure 34.6. See id. 

Appellant’s brief is ORDERED filed with this Court within 30 days after the later of the 

clerk’s record is filed or the date the reporter’s record is filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). 

Appellee’s brief, if any, must be filed within 30 days after the date the appellant’s brief is filed. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 22, 2013
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALBER I. SAID; GEORGETTE H. SAID, 

Petitioners-Appellants, 

 v. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL 

REVENUE, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 20-70223 

Tax Ct. No. 18597-19 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted February 17, 2021**

Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Alber I. Said and Georgette H. Said appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s 

order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction their petition regarding their tax liabilities 

for the 1993 to 1995 tax years. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 20-70223 

We review de novo. Gorospe v. Comm’r, 451 F.3d 966, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We 

affirm.

The Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the Saids’ 

petition because the Saids did not file it within 90 days of a notice of deficiency or 

30 days of a notice of determination. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6213(a) (establishing a 90-

day requirement for appealing a notice of deficiency); 6320(c) & 6330(d)(1) 

(establishing a 30-day requirement for appealing a notice of determination 

concerning notices of lien or notices of intent to levy); Gorospe, 451 F.3d at 968 

(the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and its subject matter is defined by 

Title 26 of the United States Code).

We reject as meritless the Saids’ contentions that the Tax Court’s final

decisions sustaining the deficiency for 1993 to 1995 were reached by fraud or 

mutual mistake, and that Tax Court Rules 314 and 341 create jurisdiction for their 

petition. 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied. 

AFFIRMED.
98-834.

#### State ex rel. McIntosh v. Osnaburg Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

Stark App. Nos. 97C50, 97CA56 and 97CA60. This cause is pending as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Stark County. It appearing to the court that the record in this case was filed on July 23, 1998, but the receipt of the record inadvertently was not docketed until August 3,1998,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that appellants’ brief(s) shall be due on or before September 14, 1998, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with the Rules of Practice.
Case 4:99-cv-00317-RH Document 274 Filed 10/07/02 Page 1 of 3
Case 4:99-cv-00317-RH Document 274 Filed 10/07/02 Page 2 of 3
Case 4:99-cv-00317-RH Document 274 Filed 10/07/02 Page 3 of 3
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MELVIN WOODARD,

D.O.C. # 797250,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv152–WS/MAF

E. PEREZ-LUGO, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 12) docketed May 7, 2020. The magistrate judge recommends that this action

be transferred to the Middle District of Florida. Plaintiff has filed no objections to

the report and recommendation.

The court having reviewed the matter, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 12) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

Case 4:20-cv-00152-WS-MAF Document 19 Filed 06/14/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. The clerk shall TRANSFER this action to the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, for all further

proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of June , 2020.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00152-WS-MAF Document 19 Filed 06/14/20 Page 2 of 2
§ 4280.301 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This subpart contains the policies and procedures by which the Agency will administer the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP). The purpose of the Program is to support the development and ongoing success of rural microentrepreneurs and microenterprises. To accomplish this purpose, the Program will make direct loans and provide grants to selected Microenterprise Development Organizations. Selected Microenterprise Development Organization will use the funds to: ( 1 ) Provide microloans to rural microentrepreneurs and microenterprises;
( 2 ) Provide business-based training and technical assistance to rural microborrowers and potential microborrowers as an essential part of the microlending process;
( 3 ) Perform other such activities as deemed appropriate by the Secretary to ensure the development and ongoing success of rural microenterprises.
( b ) The Agency will make direct loans to microlenders for the purpose of providing fixed interest rate microloans to rural microentrepreneurs for business startup and for growing microenterprises in compliance with §§ 4280.311 and 4280.312. Eligible microlenders will also be eligible to receive microlender technical assistance grants to provide technical assistance and training to microenterprises that have received or are seeking a microloan under this program in compliance with § 4280.313.
( c ) To allow for extended opportunities for technical assistance and training, the Agency will make technical assistance-only grants to Microenterprise Development Organizations that have sources of funding other than program funds for making or facilitating microloans.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 PENSACOLA DIVISION 

JOE HENRY SCOTT, III, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No.: 3:19cv3749/RV/EMT 

ESCAMBIA COUNTY SHERIFFS 

OFFICE, et al., 

Defendants. 

______________________________/ 

O R D E R

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

Report and Recommendation dated March 27, 2020 (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff has 

been 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). No objections have been filed. 

 Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined the 

Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

 Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

 1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted 

and incorporated by reference in this order. 

Case 3:19-cv-03749-RV-EMT Document 12 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:19cv3749/RV/EMT

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with an order of the court and failure of Plaintiff to keep the court apprised 

of his current address. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of April 2020. 

 /s/ Roger Vinson / 

 ROGER VINSON 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

   

Case 3:19-cv-03749-RV-EMT Document 12 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 2
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IN RE ALLEN BERGER, JR.

______________________

2013

- 1473

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board

, in Serial No. 10/822,079.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J ESUS S ANCHELIMA , Sanchelima & Associates, P.A., of Miami, Florida, argued for appellant.

J OSEPH M ATAL

, Associate Solicitor

, United States P atent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were N ATHAN K. K ELLEY , Solicitor, and C OKE M ORGAN S TEWART

, Assoc iate Solicitor.

A NDREW B LAIR -S TANEK , University of Maryland, Francis King Carey School of Law, of Baltimore, Mar yland, amicus curiae.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it isO RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN

, O’M ALLEY

, and W ALLACH

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 18, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Date Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
Searched for **http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/IPVBook-a.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/IPVBook-a.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
#### § 3701.7 Requests for published data and information.

Published data and reports produced by ERS since 1996 are available on the ERS Web site at *http://www.ers.usda.gov.* Searching on the website is available by topic, by title, or by date. The titles displayed in the search include ERS's separately published research reports as well as articles in ERS-produced periodicals. Full text of all the titles are available at no cost (usually in PDF Files). Printed copies and reports published before 1996 (while supplies last) can be purchased from the ERS-NASS sales desk at the National Technical Information Center at 1-800-999-6779 (8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, M-F).
#### § 28.8 Classification of cotton; determination.

For the purposes of The Act, the classification of any cotton shall be determined by the quality of a sample in accordance with Universal Cotton Standards (the official cotton standards of the United States) for the color grade and the leaf grade of American upland cotton, the length of staple, and fiber property measurements such as micronaire. High Volume Instruments will determine all fiber property measurements except extraneous matter, special conditions and remarks. High Volume Instrument colormeter measurements will be used for determining the official color grade. Cotton classers authorized by the Cotton and Tobacco Programs will determine the presence of extraneous matter, special conditions and remarks and authorized employees of the Cotton and Tobacco Programs will determine all fiber property measurements using High Volume Instruments. The classification record of a Classing Office or the Quality Control Division with respect to any cotton shall be deemed to be the classification record of the Department.

[77 FR 20505, Apr. 5, 2012]