alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 3401
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3401 appear at 76 FR 4806, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3401.9 Use of funds; changes. ( a ) *Delegation of fiscal responsibility.* The grantee may not delegate or transfer in whole or in part, to another person, institution, or organization the responsibility for use or expenditure of grant funds.
( b ) *Change in project plans.* ( 1 ) The permissible changes by the grantee, principal investigator(s), or other key project personnel in the approved research project grant shall be limited to changes in methodology, techniques, or other aspects of the project to expedite achievement of the projects' approved goals. If the grantee or the principal investigator(s) is uncertain as to whether a change complies with this provision, the question shall be referred to the Director for a final determination.
( 2 ) Changes in approved goals, or objectives, shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the Department prior to effecting such changes. In no event shall requests for such changes be approved which are outside the scope of the original approved project.
( 3 ) Changes in approved project leadership or the replacement or reassignment of other key project personnel shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the Department prior to effecting such changes.
( 4 ) Transfers of actual performance of the substantive programmatic work in whole or in part and provisions for payment of funds, whether or not Federal funds are involved, shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the Department prior to effecting such changes, except as may be allowed in the terms and conditions of a grant award.
( c ) *Changes in project period.* The project period determined pursuant to § 3401.7(b) may be extended by the Director without additional financial support, for such additional period(s) as the Director determines may be necessary to complete, or fulfill the purposes of, an approved project. Any extension, when combined with the originally approved or amended project period, shall be conditioned upon prior request by the grantee and approval in writing by the Department, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of a grant award.
( d ) *Changes in approved budget.* The terms and conditions of a grant will prescribe circumstances under which written Departmental approval will be requested and obtained prior to instituting changes in an approved budget.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-2850

_____________________________

CHRISTOPHER M. SCHURMAN,

Appellant,

v.

JOHN TATE, Holmes County 

Sheriff, STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Holmes County.

Russell S. Roberts, Judge.

May 8, 2024

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED as moot.

ROBERTS, RAY, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Christopher M. Schurman, pro se, Appellant.
2

David F. Holmes, Slocomb, Alabama, for Appellee John Tate, 

Holmes County Sheriff; Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee State of Florida.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:92cr4013-WS

MARLIN DAVIS, 4:05cv345-WS

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

1646) docketed September 20, 2005. The magistrate judge recommends that the

defendant's motion to reopen his section 2255 proceeding be summarily dismissed. 

The defendant has filed objections (doc. 1650) to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record in light of the defendant’s objections, 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. 1646) is adopted

and incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

Case 4:92-cr-04013-WS-CAS Document 1660 Filed 10/19/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:92cr4013-WS

2. The defendant’s motion to reopen his section 2255 proceeding (doc. 1644) is

hereby summarily DISMISSED as an unauthorized second or successive motion to

vacate.

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

4:05cv345-WS.

DONE AND ORDERED this October 19, 2005.

 /s William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:92-cr-04013-WS-CAS Document 1660 Filed 10/19/05 Page 2 of 2
## STATE 

# OF UTAH
GARY R. HERBERT OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GREG BELL GOVERNOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR 84114-2220

October 25,2011

James B. Martin, Regional Administrator U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, Colorado 80202-1129 DearMr. Martin, On May 3, 2011, the State ofUtah transmitted to your office a recommendation that all 29 counties in Utah be designated as unclassifiable for the revised S02National AmbientAir Quality Standard (NAAQS) promulgated on June 3, 2010. Thatrecommendation was based on proposed guidance under development by EPA requiring refined dispersion modeling as a basis for designation as attainment, regardless ofthe amount ofambient air monitoring data available. Atthattime, Utah did not have refined dispersion modeling for any ofthe counties in question, although the State did have adequate ambient monitoring data for the SaltLake

- Davis County area. Since the time ofthatrecommendation, Utah has reviewed the final rule establishing the NAAQS, and EPA's acknowledgement, as published in the Federal Registeron January 26,2011, that "nowhere in the preamble (much less in any promulgated regulation) does EPA state that modeling must be used for designating areas as attainment, nonattainment orunclassifiable." 76 Fed. Reg. 4,792. Utah concurs with EPA's declaration therein. Because Salt Lake County remains a nonattainment area for the initial 1971 S02 NAAQS, Utah has a long-standing and robust S02 monitoring network in SaltLake County, extending into**ndghbor~ng** Davis County. Forthe p2st 29 years, at none ofthose monitoring stations has the ambient S02 concentration everviolated either the initial orrevised standard. Therefore, based on the above facts, Utah hereby changes its initial area designations recommendation for the June 3, 2010, S02 NAAQS. The State ofUtah recommends that, based on decades ofambientmonitoring data that are well belowthe applicable S02 NAAQS, SaltLake and Davis County be designated as "attainment" areas, and the remaining 27 counties in Utah be designated as "unclassifiable" based on a lack ofsufficient ambient monitoring data. Ifyou have questions regardingthis matter, please contactBryce Bird, Directorofthe Division of Air Quality, at (801) 536-4064. Sincerely,

# ~(L.~~-I- RECEIVED U.S. EPA Region 8 Gary R. Herbert RA's Office Governor 

## OCT 28 

## 2011
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v George Andrew, Respondent.

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 14, 1979, which dismissed the first count of an indictment, charging defendant with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Order reversed, on the law, motion denied, first count of the indictment reinstated, and matter remitted to Criminal Term for further proceedings. Defendant was indicted for the crimes of possession of a weapon in the second degree and menacing. The trial court granted the motion by defendant to dismiss the first count of the indictment in the furtherance of justice (CPL 210.20, 210.40). Thereafter, defendant entered a guilty plea to the remaining count of the indictment. A count of an indictment may be dismissed in the furtherance of justice when "such dismissal is required as a matter of judicial discretion by the existence of some compelling factor, consideration or circumstance clearly demonstrating that conviction or prosecution of the defendant upon such indictment or count would constitute or result in injustice” (CPL 210.40, subd 1). In *People*v *Clayton*(41 AD2d 204, 208), Mr. Justice Hopkins, writing for this court, stated that in considering a dismissal on this ground a court must maintain a "sensitive balance between the individual and the State”. He elucidated the specific considerations applicable to this issue (p 208): "(a) the nature of the crime, (b) the available evidence of guilt, (c) the prior record of the defendant, (d) the punishment already suffered by the defendant, (e) the purpose and effect of further punishment, (f) any prejudice resulting to the defendant by the passage of time and (g) the impact on the public interest of a dismissal of the indictment.”* In reviewing the record in the instant matter we find that defendant has not shown the existence of any "compelling” factor which would warrant a dismissal of the first count of the indictment. Although we are aware that defendant has no prior record, that circumstance standing alone is not sufficient to justify the dismissal. Further, in view of the fact that the crime charged involved a loaded firearm we feel that the impact on the public interest weighed heavily against the dismissal. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the dismissal in the absence of any showing of compelling circumstances. Accordingly, the first count of the indictment must be reinstated and the matter remitted for further proceedings. Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Martuscello and O’Connor, JJ., concur

*

 CPL 210.40 was amended after the order under review was made so as to incorporate in it many of the factors set forth in *People v Clayton*(41 AD2d 204, 208).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

GERNARD DENEZ CHESTNUT,

 Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5679-MCR-HTC

CLEMMONS WALKER, et al.,

 Defendants.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation dated September 2, 2020. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was furnished 

with a copy of the Report and Recommendation and was afforded an opportunity to 

file an objection pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have 

made a de novo determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections 

thereto timely filed, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 7, is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

Case 3:20-cv-05679-MCR-HTC Document 15 Filed 11/09/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5679-MCR-HTC

2. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE because Plaintiff is a three-striker under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and for 

abuse of the judicial process by failing to disclose Plaintiff’s complete litigation 

history. 

3. The clerk be directed to close this file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of November 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05679-MCR-HTC Document 15 Filed 11/09/20 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ISHMAEL WHITAKER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5643/LAC/EMT

J. MILLER, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________/

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on October

2, 2020 (ECF No. 6). 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). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

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

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

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

comply with an order of the court.

Case No.: 3:20cv5643/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05643-LC-EMT Document 7 Filed 11/06/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of November, 2020.

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:20cv5643/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05643-LC-EMT Document 7 Filed 11/06/20 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1


                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

EMCO Recycling Corp.                           Metal Management Realty, Inc.
                                                                            
California Metals Recycling, Inc.              Firma, Inc.                  
                                                                            
MacLeod Metals Co.                             Firma Plastics Co., Inc.
                                                                            
Trojan Trading Co.                             HouTex Metals Company, Inc.  
                                                                            
Reserve Iron & Metal Limited Partnership       Parametrics, Ltd.            

P. Joseph Iron & Metal, Inc.

R&M Iron, Ltd.

General Parametrics International, Ltd.
§ 3550.252 Debt settlement policies. ( a ) *Applicability.* Debt settlement procedures may be initiated to collect any amounts due to RHS including: ( 1 ) Balances remaining on loan accounts after all liquidation proceeds or credits have been applied;
( 2 ) Subsidy recapture or grant amounts due; and
( 3 ) Unauthorized assistance due.
( b ) *Judgment.* RHS may seek a judgment whenever a judgment might enable RHS to collect all or a significant portion of an amount owed.
( c ) *Multiple loans.* RHS does not settle debts for one loan while other RHS loans on the same security property remain active.
( d ) *Cosigners and claims against estates.* RHS may use any and all remedies available under law to collect from any cosigner and from a deceased borrower's estate.
( e ) *Reporting.* RHS will report to the Internal Revenue Service and credit reporting agencies any debt settled through cancellation, compromise, or adjustment.
( f ) *Settlement during legal or investigative action.* Cases that are under investigation for fiscal irregularity or have been referred to the Office of the Inspector General, the Office of the General Counsel, or the U.S. Attorney will not be considered for debt settlement until final action by the investigating or prosecuting entity has been taken.
( g ) *Offsets.* RHS may request offsets as described in § 3550.210 to collect amounts owed.
( h ) *Escrow funds.* At liquidation all funds held in escrow or unapplied funds will be applied against the debt.
EXHIBIT 31.1

SHANGHAI CENTURY ACQUISITION CORPORATION

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Franklin D. Chu, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Shanghai Century Acquisition
Corporation;

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(s) 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) 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(s) 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.



/s/ Franklin D. ChuFranklin D. ChuPrincipal executive officerNovember 16, 2007
#### § 29.95 Review or second inspection not an appeal.

A review or investigation made in accordance with § 29.132, or a second inspection, sampling, or weighing made upon the request of an interested party for the purpose of securing new or later information when the correctness of an old certificate or sample is not questioned, shall not be considered an appeal.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 5:03-cr-05-MCR-GRJ

HERBERT D. BROWN,

____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 116, an amended motion to vacate under

28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant has amended on the Court’s forms as instructed but

rather than offer any supporting facts for each ground of his amended motion, merely

refers to “See: Attachment Memorandum and Supporting Facts.” This is problematic

because Defendant has failed to follow the form’s instructions to briefly state the

supporting facts and has further failed to file the “Attachment Memorandum and

Supporting Facts” with his amended motion. Defendant’s amended motion is also

flawed because after identifying 25 grounds for relief, he notes “several other grounds

may possibly be added as well!!” As the form itself warns: “Caution: If you fail to set

forth all grounds in this motion, you may be barred from presenting additional grounds

at a later date.” Defendant is advised that in order to avoid abandoning any grounds,

he should set forth all grounds for relief in his motion to vacate.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Clerk shall send Defendant a blank § 2255 habeas corpus form and

instructions. Petitioner shall mark the form “Second Amended Motion to

Vacate,” complete the form in its entirety, and return the signed original and two

identical service copies to the Court on or before August 2, 2012. Defendant

shall include all grounds for relief, briefly state supporting facts, and if he wishes

to include said “Attachment Memorandum and Supporting Facts” he must attach

this to the Second Amended Motion. Defendant is further advised that he may

Case 5:03-cr-00005-MCR-CJK Document 117 Filed 07/03/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

wish to include his argument as to why his motion is not time-barred (as

previously set forth in his motion for leave to file, Doc. 111) in any memorandum

attached to the Second Amended Motion.

2. Failure to comply with this Order within the allotted time will result in a

recommendation to the District Judge that this case be dismissed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3 day of July 2012.

rd

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 5:03-cr-05-MCR-GRJ

Case 5:03-cr-00005-MCR-CJK Document 117 Filed 07/03/12 Page 2 of 2
# CI2021226EN.01000501.xml

| 14.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 226/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 226/5

---

Declaration by the European Commission on Recitals 50 and 51 and Article 8.10

(2021/C 226 I/05)

Regional migration support programmes will support comprehensive, balanced and tailor-made partnerships with relevant countries of origin or transit and host countries, following a flexible incitative approach, and supported by the coordination mechanism within the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe. They will be complemented by actions under the country programmes, where appropriate.

In order to ensure the most efficient and impactful use of these funds, in line with the Union’s and partner countries’ policy priorities, the European Commission will actively implement these priorities using all relevant Union instruments and participate in the coordination with the Member States in a synchronised and efficient manner. It will ensure that the European Parliament and the Council are closely and regularly informed, allowing for exchanges of views.

---
§ 3560.660 Acceptance of prepayments. ( a ) When the Agency agrees to accept prepayment, the Agency will notify borrowers, in writing, of the conditions under which the Agency will accept prepayment including the specific restrictive-use provisions to which the borrower has agreed and the date by which the borrower must make the prepayment. ( 1 ) Prepayment must be made 180 days from the date of the Agency's prepayment acceptance notice to the borrower.
( 2 ) If the borrower's prepayment is not received within 180 days of the prepayment acceptance notice and the Agency has not agreed to an alternative date based on a written request from the borrower, the Agency may cancel the prepayment acceptance agreement.
( b ) Tenants will be notified of the prepayment acceptance agreement in accordance with § 3560.654(c). If a prepayment is anticipated to result in increased net tenant contributions, displacements or involuntary relocations, the tenants, who are affected by such a circumstance, may request a Letter Of Priority Entitlement (LOPE) in accordance with § 3560.159(c). Tenants must request a LOPE within one year of the prepayment acceptance notice date.
( c ) Owners will provide certification stating that they will meet state and local laws prior to prepayment acceptance.