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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

LEON MANSON,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-306-AW-MAF

WILLIAM P. BARR, et al.,

Respondents.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Leon Manson initiated this action by filing a “Motion for Appointment of 

Counsel Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.” ECF No. 1. The magistrate judge directed 

Manson to file a habeas petition on the proper form and to either pay the filing fee 

or submit an IFP motion. Manson did nothing, so the magistrate judge deemed the 

matter abandoned and now recommends dismissal. ECF No. 4. Manson has filed no 

objection to the report and recommendation. The docket shows the report and 

recommendation mailed to him was returned as undeliverable because Manson was 

no longer at the address he provided. This is further evidence he has abandoned this 

litigation, as he was instructed to keep the court apprised of any address changes. 

ECF No. 2

It is now ORDERED that the report and recommendation (ECF No. 4) is 

adopted and incorporated into this order. The clerk will enter a judgment that says, 

Case 4:20-cv-00306-AW-MAF Document 7 Filed 08/22/20 Page 1 of 2
2

“This case is dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court 

order.” The clerk will close the file.

SO ORDERED on August 22, 2020.

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00306-AW-MAF Document 7 Filed 08/22/20 Page 2 of 2
2006-0673.

#### In re S.J.K.

Summit App. No. 22721, 2006-Ohio-653. Discretionary appeal accepted and cause consolidated with 2006-0798, *In re S.J.K.,*Summit App. No. 22721, 2006-Ohio-653.

Resnick and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.

O’Connor, J., not participating.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DARYL CHARLES ALI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-209-RV/MJF

MARK S. INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

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

and Recommendation dated March 19, 2021 (ECF No. 24). The parties have been 

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been 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 that 

the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 5:20-cv-00209-RV-MJF Document 26 Filed 04/22/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

5:20-cv-209-RV/MJF

2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1) for maliciousness and abuse of the judicial

process.

3. The clerk of the court shall close the case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of April 2021.

s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00209-RV-MJF Document 26 Filed 04/22/21 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Craig J. Kaufmann, Controller and Treasurer of SkyTerra Communications, Inc. (the
Company), 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 my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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 10, 2006

By:

/s/    CRAIG J. KAUFMANNName:

Craig J. KaufmannTitle:

Controller and Treasurer(Principal Accounting Officer)
CERTIFICATIONS
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Luiz Augusto Brasil, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of NITAR TECH CORP.

     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 officers 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;

     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;

     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

     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this
quarterly report (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 officers 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):

     All significant deficiencies and material weakness 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

     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: May 25, 2006                      /S/ LUIZ AUGUSTO BRASIL
                                             -------------------------------
                                              Luiz Augusto Brasil
                                              Chief Executive Officer
#  Federal Acquisition Regulation

- Part 27 - Patents, Data, and Copyrights 
- Part 28 - Bonds and Insurance 
- Part 29 - Taxes 
- Part 30 - Cost Accounting Standards Administration 
- Part 31 - Contract Cost Principles and Procedures 
- Part 32 - Contract Financing 
- Part 33 Protests, Disputes, and Appeals 

**Parent topic:**Subchapter E - General Contracting Requirements
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DAVID CHARLES SUSSMAN,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv412-MW/EMT

SECRETARY DEP’T OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and 

Recommendation, ECF No. 45, and has also reviewed de novo Petitioner’s

objections, ECF No. 47. This Court has also considered, without hearing, 

Petitioner’s motion for leave to file a second amended habeas petition. ECF No. 46.

Petitioner seeks leave to file a second amended petition to “clarify that [Inmate] 

Brooks had already told Sussman his testimony would support Sussman’s defense.” 

See ECF No. 46 ⁋ 4. In Petitioner’s objections, he states, “Brooks personally told 

me he never received a DR for attacking me, was very remorseful, and fully intended 

to testify that he attacked me, and I never tried to hit him in defense.” ECF No. 47 ⁋ 

3.

Case 4:20-cv-00412-MW-EMT Document 48 Filed 10/01/21 Page 1 of 2
2

Neither Petitioner’s objections, nor his motion for leave to file a second 

amended habeas petition changes the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Petitioner

has not shown that he was actually prejudiced in the DR proceedings, as set forth in 

the last two paragraphs of the analysis of Ground Two on pages 18-19 of the report 

and recommendation. Petitioner’s assertions as to what Brooks said are still 

speculative. Moreover, the DR team considered evidence supporting Petitioner’s

defense, specifically, Petitioner’s own statements and those of Inmate Pagano.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 45, is accepted and adopted, over 

the Petitioner’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. Petitioner’s motion for leave to 

file a second amended habeas petition, ECF No. 46, is DENIED. The Clerk shall 

enter judgment stating, “Petitioner’s amended habeas petition challenging FDOC 

DR Log Nos. 102-160772 and 102-160773, ECF No. 33, is DENIED.” A certificate 

of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED on October 1, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00412-MW-EMT Document 48 Filed 10/01/21 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          208,345,167
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    20,848,493
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (1,102,428)
<INVENTORY>                                       8,573,429
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                242,128,474
<PP&E>                                           31,671,997
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (7,233,506)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  393,634,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            25,547,878
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            41,857,642
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                            506,141
<OTHER-SE>                                      321,211,338
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    393,634,410
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 51,522,975
<CGS>                                            29,724,538
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    29,724,538
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 72,437,992
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (48,892,605)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (48,892,605)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (48,892,605)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (1.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (1.39)


</TABLE>
2006-0507.

#### Peters v. Columbus Steel Castings Co.

Franklin App. No. 05AP-308, 2006-Ohio-382.

Pfeifer and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.
4.404 Contract clause.

(a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.204-2, Security Requirements, in solicitations

and contracts when the contract may require access to classified information, unless the conditions

specified in paragraph (d) of this section apply.

(b) If a cost contract (see 16.302) for research and development with an educational institution is

contemplated, the contracting officer shall use the clause with its Alternate I.

(c) If a construction or architect-engineer contract where employee identification is required for

security reasons is contemplated, the contracting officer shall use the clause with its Alternate II.

(d) If the contracting agency is not covered by the NISP and has prescribed a clause and alternates

that are substantially the same as those at 52.204-2, the contracting officer shall use the agencyprescribed clause as required by agency procedures.

Parent topic: Subpart 4.4 - Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:03cr48-SPM/GRJ

ENRIQUE MALDONADO PINEDA,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s report

and recommendation (doc. 327) dated January 26, 2011. Defendant was

furnished a copy, and has filed objections (doc. 329). 

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I find that the

report and recommendation should be adopted. The Court agrees with the

Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Defendant has not shown deficient performance or

prejudice from Mr. Edwards’ representation. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The report and recommendation (doc. 327) is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.
Page 2 of 2

2. The § 2255 motion to vacate (doc. 287) is denied. 

3. The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability because

Defendant has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of March, 2011. 

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

CASE NO. 1:03cr48-SPM/GRJ
OFFICE OF THE A-ITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

o- c MAW4 

l-n amt rSaho01 Dlwtrlot 

the tqu8liaoUon 

t ibr the pamt *no 

dlon old out of mm 

tioa but thir year *a 

otrl0-t ia eaut1*a 60 8i6 

tm a 0t sm60 au. NO. ibs, sing 

*ml Spooial Law of T*u+ ,tod call.4 

WV. a* ltlnl~8toad tlrt the dirtrlot 

ir oth~r*loo qurruri8d to no0in traml ~0iub d pr 6h0 pror id 0f Br o th a 

ft is rt48.a fll a9 2bx. atr. p. roa watt 

‘Woaumlly 0. provie Lo aoaatrur6 kr mnnoot2oa rdth 

the ertielm or notion of rhisb It mrma (L part, and i8 

tc bs I.:VUI oiioot lf rruonablr porelblo, rooordiog ta 

*Ilo olwr#aala~ of th9 lwgu!Agr usob. 

~W%'Umuily 8 prorho f8 lbite& to the olaucl *!a& 

nmxt pnaedos it WC td whfeh it lr rttaohed, Zro dmre 

than uo ruooocraivo provfeos, tbo 

htb;%ll br ~drrstood OS WUTislg to 

. . . .~ 

11*forr&n8 001 to seotlon 8 .Of FIOUW BlU m. MS it dll k 840t0a *bet It rirot prwlhoa that &lstrlotr any01 oli&rc, *ioh 

ptp wt t-r thw fO rohd.mtlei new PDM tlmn bOO roholeotior, 

. TeSb~ thie raqulreaent ir l provim l x a mp tfnrahoolr g 

fo l mrnlt matlad wuntlo~ from tbr pinionna nrtrlouw of no 

r o h o lr r ubr o@ .. a tli*. q dg r t rzltrnoo the AO$ mea l wmptr r o wtio no l @ la o ud r :a ta r UlPPlod P h lldnn tr o 8 th o limlsatiotl8 l XpMnw& 

lath%8 *ctleaanU fbrawabr 

1). . aviaod tbrt the Bld.mus ilId nxlmum Ichol8#tlq 

ibIt heroE mov!4od dmll not 8p 

aia to amy 8ohool dlotrlot otantala P 

J SOS tnarport~tion 

ap 4a l qurs* mibo aa 

Pndoubfie&ly ii the sooti~on mida& at thle point there 

muld br no qubstioa but that Bangor Xndopmdeat 8ohml District 

wiwlb bc uititlob to trmllporkt&oo ria, !Gopaxmtod'by a me&l-oolon, 

bowvor, $ho rwotloo aontlauoo: 

tlon 2 b 

aad provldrd furthsr %kmt thr wxi8um llmlto8rWlartio populetlon bewin 8ot for$bh rbrll 

xmoping ln she the iorrgoll3g Nl@b of wn11trwtlcm, wo 

thhlc tbet it ir rlgnlflcaat tbet the portioa of t&e aot la& quoted 

l b wo is wpm*tod tmaa UIat whlhh gore before by l l ombolon en8
#### In the Matter of David Castricone, Petitioner, v Edward Regan, as Comptroller of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the State Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for disability retirement. Petitioner was employed as a fireman and on March 2, 1975 in response to an alarm he injured himself in attempting to slide down the brass pole. After a hearing his application for disability retirement benefits was disapproved on the basis that there had been no "accident” within the meaning of section 363 of the Retirement and Social Security Law since it was the result of ordinary physical effort required in the performance of petitioner’s routine duties. Petitioner testified that the anchorscrews securing a railing loosened from the floor boards causing him to lose his balance and make an awkward descent. In his application for *930benefits and in a signed statement containing answers to an investigator’s questions, petitioner failed to mention that a loose railing caused him to lose his balance. Petitioner had the burden to establish that there was an accident and that disability causally resulted therefrom *(Matter of Schack v Levitt,*65 AD2d 881, 882). Since petitioner failed to mention the loose railing in his application and written statement, the Comptroller could properly conclude that petitioner’s injury was the result of the ordinary physical effort required in the performance of his routine duties *(Matter of Herrmann v Levitt,*68 AD2d 957). There is substantial evidence in the record to sustain the determination and, therefore, it must be confirmed. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Mikoll and Casey, JJ., concur.
§ 3560.257 Assigning rental assistance. ( a ) *Priorities for rental assistance.* ( 1 ) Borrowers must use the following priorities when assigning available rental assistance. ( i ) First priority is to eligible very low-income tenants paying the highest percentage of their adjusted annual income for Agency approved shelter costs.
( ii ) Second priority, if the housing project has vacant rental units, is to eligible very low-income applicants on the waiting list.
( iii ) Third priority is to eligible low-income tenants paying the highest percentage of their adjusted annual income for Agency approved shelter costs.
( iv ) Fourth priority, if the housing project has vacant rental units, is to eligible low-income applicants on the waiting list.
( v ) Fifth priority is to households which are residing in a rental unit for which they do not qualify on the basis of an occupancy waiver or other special approval situations.
( 2 ) In order to provide rental assistance to the third, fourth, and fifth priority categories, a borrower must fully document either that there are no very low-income households on the housing project's waiting list or that occupancy by low-income households is limited as follows: ( i ) For housing occupied on or after November 30, 1983, no more than 5 percent of the units in the housing are occupied by low-income households; or
( ii ) For housing occupied before November 30, 1983, no more than 25 percent of the units in the housing are occupied by low-income households.
( b ) *Continued eligibility.* Tenants receiving rental assistance may continue to do so as long as they remain eligible for occupancy and for rental assistance under § 3560.254(c), and as long as rental assistance units are available.
( c ) *Assignment of rental assistance.* Except as provided in § 3560.454(c) and using the priorities given in paragraph (a) of this section, borrowers must assign available rental assistance units as soon as rental assistance units become available. ( 1 ) When a rental assistance unit is assigned to an eligible existing tenant on a day other than the first day of a month, the Agency will not provide the borrower rental assistance for the newly assigned existing tenant and the tenant will not pay reduced rental charges until the first of the month following the assignment of the rental assistance.
( 2 ) When an eligible applicant moves into a rental assistance unit on a day other than the first day of a month, they will pay a prorated rent based on the number of days they occupy the rental assistance unit and the amount of rental assistance they will be receiving.
( d ) *Incorrectly assigned rental assistance.* Incorrectly assigned rental assistance is viewed as unauthorized assistance and handled in accordance with subpart O of this part.
EXHIBIT
10.03


 


[Entercom
Letterhead]


 


	
  TO:

  	
   

  	
  John C. Donlevie
  (“Employee”)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FROM:

  	
   

  	
  Stephen F.
  Fisher [sign
  here]

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  DATE:

  	
   

  	
  January 20,
  2009

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  RE:

  	
   

  	
  Waiver of
  Scheduled CPI Salary Increase

  



 


This Memorandum
will confirm our agreement regarding the schedule 2009 CPI increase to your
salary pursuant to the employment agreement (the “Agreement”)
between you (the “Employee”) and
Entercom Communications Corp. (the “Company”).


 


Waiver.  Employee
hereby agrees that the scheduled CPI increase to Employee’s base salary due
under the Agreement on July 1, 2009 will not take effect.


 


Miscellaneous. 
This Memorandum constitutes the entire agreement and understanding
between Employee and the Company concerning the subject matter hereof.  No other written or oral agreements or
promises have been made with respect to entering into this Memorandum.  All terms and provisions of the Agreement not
expressly modified by this Memorandum remain in full force and effect and are
binding on the Employee and the Company. 
This Memorandum does not, and shall not be deemed to, extend the term of
Employee’s employment with the Company as set forth in the Agreement.


 


For consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and intending to
be legally bound, Employee has executed this Memorandum.


 


ACCEPTED &
AGREED TO:


 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ John C.
  Donlevie

  	
   

  
	
  Print Name:

  	
  John C. Donlevie

  	
   

  
	
  Date:

  	
  January 20,
  2009