alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:89cr4004-WS

CHARLES HUDSON, 4:06cv5-WS

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 862)

docketed February 8, 2006. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's 

motion for relief from judgment, filed on January 5, 2006, be summarily dismissed

because authorization for filing a second or successive motion has not been granted. 

The defendant has filed objections (doc. 863) 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. 862) is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

Case 4:89-cr-04004-WS-WCS Document 865 Filed 03/08/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:89cr4004-WS

2. The defendant’s motion for relief from judgment (doc. 856) is hereby

summarily DISMISSED as an unauthorized second or successive section 2255 motion.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall close Case No. 4:06cv5-

WS.

4. The defendant’s notice for preservation of claim (doc. 858) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this March 8, 2006.

 /s William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:89-cr-04004-WS-WCS Document 865 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.1



CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION



I, Denise Smith, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB 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 am 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 14, 2007















/s/ Denise Smith







Denise Smith









President and Chief Executive Officer
4.1201 Policy.

(a) Offerors and quoters are required to complete electronic annual representations and

certifications in SAM accessed via https://www.sam.gov as a part of required registration (see FAR

4.1102).

(b)

(1) All registrants are required to review and update the representations and certifications

submitted to SAM as necessary, but at least annually, to ensure they are kept current, accurate, and

complete. The representations and certifications are effective until one year from date of submission

or update to SAM.

(2) A contractors that represented itself as a small business prior to award of a contract must update

the representations and certifications in SAM in accordance with 52.219-28, A contractor that

represented itself as other than small business before contract award and qualifies as a small

business may update its representations and certifications in SAM in accordance with 52.219-28.

(c) Data in SAM is archived and is electronically retrievable. Therefore, when a prospective

contractor has completed representations and certifications electronically in SAM, the contracting

officer must reference the date of SAM verification in the contract file to satisfy contract file

documentation requirements of 4.803(a)(11). However, if an offeror identifies changes to SAM data

pursuant to the FAR provisions at 52.204-8(d) or 52.212-3(b), the contracting officer must include a

copy of the changes in the contract file.

(d) The contracting officer shall incorporate the representations and certifications by reference in

the contract (see 52.204-19, or for acquisitions of commercial products or commercial services see

52.212-4(v)).

Parent topic: Subpart 4.12 - Representations and Certifications
##### 



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
 Company Form 10-K
 (1)
    
    The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 Dated: March 31, 2008.By:
    
    /s/ Mark D. FreemanMark D. FreemanExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March

12 , 2020

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 20

- 00088

- CV

LILLIE SCHECHTER, JENNIFER HALVORSEN, GIORDAUN BETTY, AND THE HARRIS COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY , Appell ant s

V.

GEORGE POWE LL , Appellee

On Appeal from the 234th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 88409

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a n order signed January 8, 2020. On March 2, 2020, appellant s filed a motion to di smiss the appeal. See T ex. R. App. P. 42.1 . The motion is granted.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Spain

.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER JON PERGROSSI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20cv195-MW/GRJ

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

DECLARING GHOSTS ARE REAL,

Defendant.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Order to Show Cause and Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 4, and has also 

reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation.1 ECF 

No. 6.

Plaintiff filed 33 cases over a four-day period, from August 17 through August 

20, 2020. These cases were assigned to three U. S. District Judges in the Northern 

District of Florida. The cases are frivolous. Understandably, the Magistrate Judge 

1 Plaintiff filed a document in Case No. 1:20cv181-MW/GRJ, ECF No. 6, which this Court has 

construed as an omnibus response to the Order to Show Cause and as objections to the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones, ECF No. 4.

Case 1:20-cv-00195-MW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/23/20 Page 1 of 2
2

found this extraordinary volume of frivolous cases merits the imposition of 

restrictions on future filings in order to preserve scarce judicial resources and protect 

the efficient administration of justice. While a close call, this Court will not restrict 

future filings unless Plaintiff continues to abuse the process. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted in part, over 

Plaintiff’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, 

“This case is DISMISSED without leave to amend as frivolous and/or for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

No restrictions are imposed on future filings unless Plaintiff continues to abuse the 

judicial process.” The Clerk shall also close the file. 

SO ORDERED on September 24, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00195-MW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/23/20 Page 2 of 2
19.1407 [Reserved]

Parent topic: Subpart 19.14 - Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Procurement

Program
Editorial Note on Part 4290
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

§ 4290.1600 Agency's authority to issue and guarantee Trust Certificates. ( a ) *Authorization.* Section 384F of the Act authorizes the Agency to issue TCs and to guarantee the timely payment of the principal and interest thereon. Any such guarantee of such TC is limited to the principal and interest due on the Debentures in any Trust or Pool backing such TC. The full faith and credit of the United States is pledged to the payment of all amounts due under the guarantee of any TC.
( b ) *Authority to arrange public or private fundings of Leverage.* The Agency in its discretion may arrange for public or private financing under its guarantee authority. Such financing may be accomplished by the sale of individual Debentures, aggregations of Debentures, or Pools or Trusts of Debentures.
( c ) *Pass-through provisions.* TCs shall provide for a pass-through to their holders of all amounts of principal and interest paid on the Debentures in the Pool or Trust against which they are issued.
( d ) *Formation of a Pool or Trust holding Leverage Securities.* The Agency shall approve the formation of each Pool or Trust. The Agency may, in its discretion, establish the size of the Pools and their composition, the interest rate on the TCs issued against Trusts or Pools, discounts, premiums and other charges made in connection with the Pools, Trusts, and TCs, and any other characteristics of a Pool or Trust it deems appropriate. Notwithstanding § 4290.1130(c), any agent of the Agency may collect a fee for the functions described in 7 U.S.C. 2009cc-5(e)(2) that does not exceed $500.
[69 FR 32204, June 8, 2004, as amended at 76 FR 80224, Dec. 23, 2011]
#### § 400.201 Applicability of standards.

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation will offer an Agency Sales and Service Contract (the Contract) to private entities meeting the requirements set forth in this subpart under which the Corporation will insure producers of agricultural commodities. The Contract will be consistent with the requirements of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended, and the provisions of the regulations of the Corporation found at chapter IV of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Standards contained herein are required for an entity to be a contractor under the Contract.
#### § 28.407 Good Ordinary Color.

Good Ordinary Color is color which is within the range represented by a set of samples in the custody of the United States Department of Agriculture in a container marked “Original Official Cotton Standards of the United States, American Upland, Good Ordinary, effective July 1, 1987.”
#### Health N Sports, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Providence Capitol Realty Group, Inc. (a Gulf & Western Company), Respondent.

In an action for a declaratory judgment, permanent injunction and damages arising out of a commercial lease, plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 18, 1980, as denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiffs, tenants under a long-term commercial lease, seek a preliminary injunction tolling a 10-day termination notice served upon them by their landlord, which notice alleged a number of defaults under the lease (cf. First *Nat. Stores v Yellowstone Shopping Center,*21 NY2d 630). In order to preserve the right to cure a default under the lease by a declaratory judgment action, the tenant must obtain a stay of the period within which the default may be cured (see *First Nat. Stores v Yellowstone Shopping Center, supra,*p 637; *Wuertz v Cowne,*65 AD2d 528). Plaintiffs failed to obtain a stay of the curative period (within 15 days of a notice of default), but instead secured a stay of the period *885between the notice of termination and its expiration date. As such, the plaintiffs’ stay was procured after the landlord had acted to terminate the lease in accordance with its terms. While the termination notice provides for a 10-day period before the lease expires, the period is not one within which the tenant could cure the defaults. The failure of the plaintiffs to toll the curative period under the lease divested the court of its power to grant such a temporary stay (see *First Nat. Stores v Yellowstone Shopping Center, supra; Wuertz v Cowne, supra; Westside Towers v Hevro Realty Corp.,*40 AD2d 664; *Wienerwald 8th St. v Third Brevoort Corp.,*38 AD2d 525; *150 East 57th St. Assoc. v Fletcher,*35 AD2d 947; but see *Madison Ave. Specialties*v *Seville Enterprises,*40 AD2d 784; *Lewis v Clothes Shack,*67 Misc 2d 621). We do not reach the substantive issues raised by the plaintiffs, including the question of whether the defendant has waived the alleged defaults or breaches under the lease (cf. *Malloy v Club Marakesh,*71 AD2d 614; *Condit v Manischewitz,*220 App Div 366; *Sagson Co. v Weiss,*83 Misc 2d 806; *Trent v Corwin,*76 NYS2d 198; Rasch, New York Landlord & Tenant [2d ed], § 738; 3A Corbin, Contracts, § 763). "Whenever two men contract, no limitation self-imposed can destroy their power to contract again” *(Beatty v Guggenheim Exploration Co.,*225 NY 380, 388; see, also, *Rose v Spa Realty Assoc.,*42 NY2d 338, 343). All of these matters may be resolved at a trial. Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
22.000 Scope of part.

This part-

(a) Deals with general policies regarding contractor labor relations as they pertain to the acquisition

process;

(b) Prescribes contracting policy and procedures for implementing pertinent labor laws; and

(c) Prescribes contract clauses with respect to each pertinent labor law.

Parent topic: Part 22 - Application of Labor Laws to Government Acquisitions
19.1308 [Reserved].

Parent topic: Subpart 19.13 - Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program
# 16.207 Firm-fixed-price, level-of-effort term contracts.

- 16.207-1 Description. 
- 16.207-2 Application. 
- 16.207-3 Limitations. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 16.2 - Fixed-Price Contracts
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

I, Franklin D. Chu, Co-Chief Executive Officer and principal executive officer of Shanghai Century Acquisition Corporation (the
Company), do hereby certify, 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:



| |  |  | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 14, 2007



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Franklin D. Chu        
|Franklin D. Chu            
|Principal executive officer
#### § 29.40 Mandatory inspection.

Inspection authorized or required under section 5 of the Act or section 759 of the Appropriations Act.

[67 FR 36080, May 23, 2002]
FLN (Rev. 3/2007) Deficiency Order Page 1 of 1

5:95cr5015LAC - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. SERGIO GONZALEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs

SERGIO GONZALEZ

Case No.5:95cr5015LAC

ORDER

Your document, REPLY/TRAVERSE TO GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO

PETITIONER’S RULE 35(b) MOTION, was referred to the undersigned with the

following deficiencies:

The document does not have a Certificate of Service as required by Rule

5(b) and (d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, showing proper

service.

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall return the document to the

filing party.

DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of July, 2007.

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:95-cr-05015-LC Document 535 Filed 07/13/07 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         236,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 242,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     202,800<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   242,400
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               204,700
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  174,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                78,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (48,400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (48,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 109,100
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    60,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.40<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Net assets in liquidation.
<F2>Net income per limited partnership unit.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

*May 12, 2006*

[Cite as *05/12/2006 Case Announcements,*2006-Ohio-2324.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2004- 0892.

#### Fostoria v. Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn.

Seneca App. No. 13-03-26, 2004-Ohio-1945. This cause came on for further consideration of appellants’ motion for leave to file a reply to appellee’s response to the show cause order. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is granted, and appellants shall file their reply within ten days of the date of this entry.
#### 50 Front Street Corporation, Appellant, v Ellsworth W. Dearborn et al., Respondents. (And Another Proceeding.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at a Trial Term, entered August 28, 1978 in Broome County, which dismissed petitioner’s applications, in proceedings pursuant to article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law, seeking a reduction of realty tax assessments. In 1973, petitioner acquired an improved parcel of land in the City of Binghamton and thereafter converted it for use as an adult care facility. Its challenges to respondents’ 1975, 1976 and 1977 tax assessments were rejected following a trial of the issues. We have examined the various contentions advanced by petitioner in support of reversal and conclude that they lack merit. These proceedings developed a typical pattern of conflicting evidence. Although the assessments during the tax years *1023in question indicated that the property had a value of between 2.5 and 2.7 million dollars, petitioner’s expert appraised it at less than 2 million dollars, while respondents’ appraiser opined that it was worth approximately 2.8 million dollars. The witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examinations which revealed certain weaknesses in their respective positions. The trial court, after hearing these proofs, decided that petitioner had failed to establish the excessiveness of the assessments by the accepted standard of clear and convincing evidence (see *Matter of Nezelek Dev. Corp. v City of Binghamton,*61 AD2d 1108; *Matter of Canon Point North v Tax Comm, of City of N. Y.,*30 AD2d 522). In attacking the methods and conclusions of respondents’ appraiser on this appeal, petitioner seems to overlook its own burden. The opposing experts principally relied on the income approach to valuation, but it does not follow that an error on the part of respondents’ witness proves the validity of petitioner’s claims. Even if we were to accept all of the criticisms leveled at the appraisal offered to uphold the assessments, and we do not, petitioner would not be entitled to relief unless it could affirmatively demonstrate that the disputed assessments were clearly wrong. This, as the trial court found, it has failed to do. Petitioner’s evidence was deficient in several respects, particularly in its failure to document in detail the costs of acquisition and conversion, and other factors contained in this record, though perhaps of little weight, tend to support the assessments actually made. Accordingly, we discern no reason to upset the present judgment. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Kane, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur; Greenblott, J. P., not taking part.