alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 VS CASE NO. 4:03-CR-32-01 SPM 

 LEWGENE MEEKS

FINANCIAL REFERRAL AND ORDER

Regarding release of funds for: X Fine, Restitution, Filing Fee, Attorney Admission Fee,

 Copy Fee, Bond, Other (Specify) 

By: Lewgene Meeks #11757-017 (Payee)

Address: USP Coleman I

 PO Box 1033

Coleman, FL 33521

Receipt Number B060908DFLN403CR000032 Date of Receipt 7/23/08 

Motion: N/A

Explanation: Lewgene Meeks’ $800.00 special assessment was paid on 6/30/08. The Clerk’s office

received $25.00 on the June 2008 Bureau of Prisons (BOP) reports. According to the court dockets and

financial records, Mr. Meek does not owe any additional money. Requesting authorization to refund the

$25.00 overpayment and any other payments we may receive from the BOP for this case. There may be

a timing difference on the BOP stopping payments for this account.

.

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, Clerk of Court

Prepared by: ___s/Philip Detweiler_____________

 Philip Detweiler, Financial Specialist Date: July 25, 2008 

ORDER OF COURT

It is ORDERED this 25th day of July , 2008, that the Clerk refund the identified funds to the

payee.

APPROVED T 

DENIED_________________ s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

STEPHAN P. MICKLE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Adopted: 12/03/99

Case 4:03-cr-00032-RH-AK Document 44 Filed 07/25/08 Page 1 of 1
Case 4:99-cv-00317-RH Document 86 Filed 02/02/00 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:99-cv-00317-RH Document 86 Filed 02/02/00 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.57


 


A MARK OF *** IN THE TEXT OF
THIS EXHIBIT INDICATES THAT CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL HAS BEEN OMITTED. THE
EXHIBIT, INCLUDING THE OMITTED PORTIONS, HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE
SECRETARY OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO AN APPLICATION
REQUESTING CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER RULE 24b-2 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934.


 


 


February 5,
2009


 


PERSONAL
AND CONFIDENTIAL


 


Richard Boulton


LECG Ltd.


Davidson Building


5 Southampton Street


London WC2E 7HA


United Kingdom


 


Re:                               FAS Group Practice Management  Agreement —Amendment No. 2


 


Dear Richard:


 


Pursuant to our recent
discussions, this letter agreement (Amendment No. 2) amends sections 4.1 and
4.3 of your FAS Group Practice Management Agreement with LECG, LLC dated September 12,
2007, as amended December 11, 2008. Except as further amended by this
Amendment No. 2, all other terms of your FAS Group Practice Management
Agreement with LECG, LLC shall remain in full force and effect.


 


4.               Remuneration


 


4.1         Effective January 1, 2009, Boulton’s base salary will be Five Hundred Thousand
Pounds Sterling (£500,000) per annum (the “Base Salary”), payable
monthly in accordance with LECG UK’s ordinary payroll practices. The Base
Salary will be reviewed annually by the Compensation Committee of the Board,
and will be subject to increase in its sole discretion.


 


* * * * *


 


4.3         In the three consecutive years of Boulton’s service following the Base
Period (the “Bonus Period), Boulton’s bonus will be determined in accordance
with this section 4.3. The Bonus Period is separated into three twelve-month
segments: Year Two, Year Three, and Year Four.


 


4.3.1                      Boulton will be entitled to a discretionary annual bonus of up to ***,
depending upon his success in meeting the expectations 


 

















 


outlined above, as determined solely by the
Chief Executive Officer.


 


4.3.2                      Should Boulton significantly exceed his objectives, he will be eligible
for a discretionary annual bonus of up to a maximum of ***.


 


4.3.3                      The award of any discretionary bonus will be subject to approval by the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.


 


 


Please acknowledge your
acceptance and receipt of this notification by signing below where indicated,
and returning a fully-signed copy to me.


 


Sincerely,


LECG, LLC


 


 


	
  /s/ Tina M. Bussone / ejd

  	
   

  



 


Tina M. Bussone


Executive Vice President and Head of Human Resources
and Operations


 


Agreed to and Accepted:


 


 


	
          /s/ Richard Boulton

  	
   

  	
          9 February 2009

  
	
  Richard Boulton

  	
   

  	
  Date

  



 


2
16.206-2 Application.       A fixed-ceiling-price contract with retroactive price redetermination is appropriate for research and development contracts estimated at the simplified acquisition threshold or less when it is established at the outset that a fair and reasonable firm fixed price cannot be negotiated and that the amount involved and short performance period make the use of any other fixed-price contract type impracticable.                                       (a)                    						             A ceiling price shall be negotiated for the contract at a level that reflects a reasonable sharing of risk by the contractor. The established ceiling price may be adjusted only if required by the operation of contract clauses providing for equitable adjustment or other revision of the contract price under stated circumstances.                                          (b)                    						             The contract should be awarded only after negotiation of a billing price that is as fair and reasonable as the circumstances permit.                                          (c)                    						             Since this contract type provides the contractor no cost control incentive except the ceiling price, the contracting officer should make clear to the contractor during discussion before award that the contractor’s management effectiveness and ingenuity will be considered in retroactively redetermining the price.    **Parent topic:** 16.206 Fixed-ceiling-price contracts with retroactive price redetermination.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Veterans' Employment and Training Service

# AGENCY:

U.S. Department of Labor.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The business meeting of the Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training and Employer Outreach (ACVETEO) scheduled for teleconference on Friday, December 3, 2010 from 2 to 3:30 p.m., has been cancelled. This meeting was announced                               ( print page 72842)                            in the                         **Federal Register**                         of November 4, 2010 at 75 FR 68007.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gregory Green (202) 693-4734

Signed in Washington, DC, this 19th day of November 2010.

John M. McWilliam,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Veterans' Employment and Training Service.

[FR Doc. 2010-29746 Filed 11-24-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-79-P
1 The Honorable Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 95-3064

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Otis R. Banks, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 5, 1996 Filed: February 14, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Otis Ray Banks appeals from the district court's 1 order imposing a six-month term of imprisonment and one-year term of supervised release upon revocation of his probation. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the sentence. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 73084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30050]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 9, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Kenneth Binning, Vice 
President, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105-1579:
    1. Franklin Resources, Inc., San Mateo, California; to acquire 
additional voting shares of First Chicago Bancorp, and thereby 
indirectly acquire voting shares of First Chicago Bank & Trust, both of 
Chicago, Illinois.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 24, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-30050 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
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




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Linn Energy, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kolja Rockov, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1. 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: April 29, 2010

/s/  Kolja RockovKolja RockovExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

TALLAHASSEE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

BOBBIE BOLTON, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. CIRCUIT CIVIL 

 CASE NO. 4:03CV307-RH/WCS 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and 

CORRECTIONS OFFICER JEFFREY LINTON 

 Defendant. 

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Plaintiff has settled all claims against all 

Defendants. According to the settlement, upon signing of mutual releases, all parties will 

stipulate to Dismissal of this Cause. Each Party will bear its own fees and costs. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 s/James V. Cook____________________

 JAMES V. COOK 

 Florida Bar Number 0966843 

 314 West Jefferson Street 

 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 

 (850) 222-8080; 561-0836 fax 

I CERTIFY that the foregoing was filed electronically on 11/23/04 and that the person 

noted below is registered to be notified by the CM/ECF electronic mail system: 

Robert Stinson, Esq. 

U.S. Attorney's Office 

111 North Adams Street, Ste. 400 

Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7717 

Jenifer Grundy Hollett, Esq. 

Consolidated Legal Center 

501 Gary Hill Road, P.O. B. 723 

Edgefield, SC 29918 

Gary Lee Printy, Esq. 

Law Office of Gary Lee Printy 

1804 Miccosukee Commons Dr., Ste. 200 

Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5471 

s/James V. Cook_______________________

JAMES V. COOK, ESQ. 

Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 80 Filed 11/23/04 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 80 Filed 11/23/04 Page 2 of 2
§ 4284.11 Award requirements. In addition to specific grant requirements, all approved applicants will be required to do the following: ( a ) Enter into an Agency-approved grant agreement with RBS;
( b ) Disclose in writing any potential conflicts of interest and maintain written standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest, including organizational conflicts of interest in accordance with 2 CFR 400.2;
( c ) Use “Request for Advance or Reimbursement” to request advances or reimbursements, as applicable, but not more frequently than once a month;
( d ) Maintain a financial management system that is acceptable to the Agency; and
( e ) Collect and maintain data on race, sex and national origin of the beneficiaries of the project.
[69 FR 23425, Apr. 29, 2004, as amended at 79 FR 76017, Dec. 19, 2014]
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

vs. Case No. 4:99cr81-RH

Case No. 4:02cv365-RH/WCS

BRENDA M. MOLSBEE,

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The district judge has remanded this case as to Defendant Molsbee for a

determination of the appropriate Rule 11 sanction. In response to my last order, doc.

259, the Government filed a memorandum, doc. 261, but Defendant has not.

The Government has shown that it incurred $381.50 as travel expenses and 15.5

hours of attorney time. Clyde Taylor spent about 12.5 hours preparing for testimony. 

Doc. 249, attachment. It is estimated that George Blow spent the same amount of time

since his role as a witness during the § 2255 hearing was about as complicated as Mr.

Taylor's role. An appropriate sanction is to order that Defendant recompense these

persons for their expenses.

Case 4:99-cr-00081-RH-WCS Document 264 Filed 05/20/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

1

 My last report and recommendation recommended a rate of $153.12 per hour.

Case Nos. 4:99cr81-RH and 4:02cv365-RH/WCS

The Government suggests that as a minimum, the Criminal Justice Act hourly

rates for attorneys be used to calculate the expenses for which Defendant should be

held accountable. While the CJA hourly rate is lower than most other hourly rate

standards, the attorney for the Government is not paid at that hourly rate. Further, while

Mr. Taylor and Mr. Blow work for that hourly rate from time to time, they also represent

retained clients at a higher effective hourly rate. A better standard is the Equal Access

to Justice Act rate, which currently is at about $150 per hour.1

 Using that hourly rate,

$2,325 is due the United States, plus $381.50 for a total of $2,706.50, $1,875 is due Mr.

Taylor, and $1,875 is due Mr. Blow. 

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court direct the Clerk to enter three

separate judgments against Defendant as follows: (1) $2,706.50 in favor of the United

States, (2) $1,875.00 in favor of Clyde Taylor, and (3) $1,875.00 in favor of George

Blow.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on May 20, 2005.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10

days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections

limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case 4:99-cr-00081-RH-WCS Document 264 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 2
6.302-7 Public interest.

(a) Authority.

(1) Citations: 10 U.S.C. 3204(a)(7) or 41 U.S.C.3304(a)(7).

(2) Full and open competition need not be provided for when the agency head determines that it is

not in the public interest in the particular acquisition concerned.

(b) Application. This authority may be used when none of the other authorities in 6.302 apply.

(c) Limitations.

(1) A written determination to use this authority shall be made in accordance with subpart 1.7, by-

(i) The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of

the Air Force, the Secretary of Homeland Security for the Coast Guard, or the Administrator of the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration; or

(ii) The head of any other executive agency. This authority may not be delegated.

(2) The Congress shall be notified in writing of such determination not less than 30 days before

award of the contract.

(3) If required by the head of the agency, the contracting officer shall prepare a justification to

support the determination under paragraph (c)(1) of this subsection.

(4) This Determination and Finding (D&F) shall not be made on a class basis.

Parent topic: 6.302 Circumstances permitting other than full and open competition.
15.407-5 Estimating systems.       (a)                    						            Using an acceptable estimating system for proposal preparation benefits both the Government and the contractor by increasing the accuracy and reliability of individual proposals. Cognizant audit activities, when it is appropriate to do so, shall establish and manage regular programs for reviewing selected contractors’ estimating systems or methods, in order to reduce the scope of reviews to be performed on individual proposals, expedite the negotiation process, and increase the reliability of proposals. The results of estimating system reviews shall be documented in survey reports.                                          (b)                    						            The auditor shall send a copy of the estimating system survey report and a copy of the official notice of corrective action required to each contracting office and contract administration office having substantial business with that contractor. Significant deficiencies not corrected by the contractor shall be a consideration in subsequent proposal analyses and negotiations.    **Parent topic:** 15.407 Special cost or pricing areas.
Exhibit 18.1  October 5, 2005   Board of Directors Adelphia Communications Corporation 5619 DTC Parkway Greenwood Village, CO 80111  Dear Directors:  We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your
Form 10-K filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.  We have audited theconsolidatedfinancial statementsincludedin the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year endedDecember 31, 2004and issued our report thereon datedOctober 5, 2005.Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements describes a change in
accounting principle from amortizing customer relationship intangibles on a
straight line methodto a double declining balance method.It should be understood that the preferability of one acceptable method
of accounting over another for amortization of customer relationship
intangibleshas not been addressed in any
authoritative accounting literature, and in expressing our concurrence below we
have relied on managements determination that this change in accounting principle
is preferable.  Based on our reading of
managements stated reasons and justification for this change in accounting
principle in the Form 10-K, and our discussions with management as to their
judgment about the relevant business planning factors relating to the change,
we concur with management that such change represents, in the Companys
circumstances, the adoption of a preferable accounting principle in conformity
with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 20.  Very truly yours,  /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
#### Herman Kahaner et al., Respondents, v Acme Safe Company, Inc., Appellant. (And a Second Action.)

In consolidated actions to recover damages for property loss, defendant appeals from an order and interlocutory judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 8, 1979, which, *inter alia,*is in favor of plaintiffs, after a jury trial limited to the issue of liability only. Order and interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs. In this action, which involves the theft of customers’ lists from the appellant, Acme Safe Company, Inc., and the subsequent burglaries of respondents’ homes, foreseeability is indicated by Acme’s notice to its commercial customers of the burglary of its premises and arranging to change the combinations on their safes. However, appellant, even after it learned that residences were being burglarized, failed to take the same precautions with respect to its residential customers. Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Gulotta, JJ., concur.