alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3560.401 General. ( a ) *Purpose.* This subpart contains actions the Agency may take to service and collect loans or other debts owed by multi-family housing (MFH) borrowers. The loan servicing and other actions set forth are designed to protect Agency and tenant interests and assist borrowers in meeting program objectives.
( b ) *General servicing policies.* Borrowers must repay loans or other amounts due to the Agency according to provisions specified in promissory notes, loan agreements and resolutions, mortgages, deeds-of-trust, assumption agreements, reamortization agreements, or other agreements executed between the borrower and the Agency.
( c ) *Special servicing actions.* The Agency will not agree to any proposal for loan servicing or debt collection action other than actions consistent with this section, debt instruments, and other agreements. When payments due to the Agency from a borrower remain unpaid for more than 30 days after the due date, past due, after the Agency may initiate the special servicing actions described in subpart J of this part.
22.1504 Violations and remedies.

(a) Violations. The Government may impose remedies set forth in paragraph (b) of this section for

the following violations (note that the violations in paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this section go

beyond violations of the requirements relating to certification of end products) (see 22.1503):

(1) The contractor has submitted a false certification regarding knowledge of the use of forced or

indentured child labor.

(2) The contractor has failed to cooperate as required in accordance with the clause at 52.222-19,

Child Labor Cooperation with Authorities and Remedies, with an investigation of the use of forced or

indentured child labor by an Inspector General, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of the

Treasury.

(3) The contractor uses forced or indentured child labor in its mining, production, or manufacturing

processes.

(4) The contractor has furnished an end product or component mined, produced, or manufactured,

wholly or in part, by forced or indentured child labor. Remedies in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of

this section are inappropriate unless the contractor knew of the violation.

(b) Remedies.

(1) The contracting officer may terminate the contract.

(2) The suspending official may suspend the contractor in accordance with the procedures in

subpart 9.4.

(3) The debarring official may debar the contractor for a period not to exceed 3 years in accordance

with the procedures in subpart 9.4.

Parent topic: Subpart 22.15 - Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or

Indentured Child Labor
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO.: 4:96cr36/MMP

EDDIE LEE GORDON

 /

O R D E R

This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion for sentence reduction

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). (Doc. 209). The government has responded in

opposition, raising an issue of retroactivity. (Doc. 210). Upon consideration, the court finds

it appropriate to appoint counsel and permit defendant an opportunity to argue his

entitlement to a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court has

determined that defendant is qualified for appointment of counsel pursuant to the

provisions of the Criminal Justice Act. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1

1. The Federal Public Defender, 111 North Adams Street, Suite 100,

Tallahassee, Florida 32301, telephone number (850) 521-3851, is appointed to represent

this defendant and serve as counsel of record for the purposes of resentencing in the

above-styled cause. The defendant is presently in custody. If a Criminal Justice Act (CJA)

panel attorney is selected by the Federal Public Defender as defendant’s attorney, this

order authorizes payment of the CJA attorney for work on behalf of defendant.

2. Followingappearance by appointed counsel, the court will allow forty-five (45)

days within which to file a motion on behalf of defendant. If no motion is filed within the

By initial Order dated June 18, 1996, defendant was determined qualified for appointment of

1

counsel. Defendant has remained in custody since that date and the court sees to no basis or reason to alter

his CJA qualification status.
Page 2 of 2

prescribed time period, the court will enter an order denying sentence reduction pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

DONE and ORDERED 8th day of November, 2011.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 4:96cr36/MMP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO.: 4:02-CR-32-SPM

JASON LEMARVIN JOHNSON,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant’s motion for

reconsideration (doc. 130). Defendant requests that this Court reconsider its

decision to deny Defendant’s request for a sentence reduction under the

retroactive crack cocaine amendment (Amendments 706 and 711) and 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c) (doc. 125). 

This Court found that Defendant was not entitled to a sentence reduction

because his offense involved more than 8 kilograms of powder cocaine and there

was no cocaine base attributed to Defendant. This Court then concluded that the

crack cocaine amendment did not affect Defendant’s sentence determination. 

Upon further review of the United States Probation Office’s Presentence

Investigation Report, this Court finds that the amount of cocaine base attributed

to Defendant, though mentioned in the report, was not a factor in Defendant’s

sentence.

Case 4:02-cr-00032-SPM Document 131 Filed 07/14/08 Page 1 of 2
2

Defendant’s base offence level was 32. This is the base offence level for

an offense involving more than 5 kilograms but less than 15 kilograms of cocaine

powder. Therefore even though there were 73 grams of cocaine base attributed

to Defendant in the presentence report, this amount was not part of the

sentencing calculation. Careful review of the presentence report reveals that

Defendant is mistaken. The only substance used to determine Defendant’s

sentencing range was cocaine powder. Therefore, this Court correctly concluded

that Defendant is ineligible for the two-level reduction under Amendment 706.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s

“Motion for Reconsideration” (doc. 130) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this fourteenth day of July, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cr-00032-SPM Document 131 Filed 07/14/08 Page 2 of 2
================================================================================

================================================================================
                                  Exhibit 99.1
                            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 Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Chell Group  Corporation
(the  "Company")  for the  period  ending  August  31,  2003 as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen
McDermott,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  (S) 1350, as adopted  pursuant to (S) 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.


/s/ Dave Bolink
-----------------------------
Dave Bolink
President, Chief Executive Officer & Chief Accounting Officer
October 12, 2004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JOE HENRY SCOTT, III,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:19cv3752-TKW-EMT 

ROBERT A. MACKEY,

Defendant.

/

OR D E R

This case is before the Court based upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 6). No objections to the Report and Recommendation were 

filed. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the case file, I agree 

with the magistrate judge’s determination that this case is due to be dismissed 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) because the complaint fails to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted under federal or state law. I also agree that the 

dismissal of the federal claims should be with prejudice because it is clear that those 

claims cannot be amended to state a plausible claim. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that:

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

incorporated by reference in this Order.
2

2. Plaintiff’s federal claims are DISMISSED with prejudice, and his 

state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

3. The Clerk shall close the file.

DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of January, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-1599

___________ Cynthia Herron, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Principal Management Corporation, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant, * * and * * Princor Financial Services; * Principal Life Insurance Company, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 26, 2008 Filed: March 21, 2008

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
2 Claims against other defendants were di smissed and are not at issue on appeal. -2- Cynthia Herron appeals the district court’s 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of her diversity action against Principal Life Insurance Company (Principal Life), seeking damages under Miss ouri law for breach of contract, tortious interference with a business expectancy, a nd breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, arising out of her role as a broker for Principal Life. 2Having carefully reviewed the record and considered Herron’ s arguments, we find no basis for reversal. See Levy v. Ohl , 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2007) (de novo standard of review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal); Bockelman v. MCI Worldcom, Inc. , 403 F.3d 528, 531 (8th Cir. 2005) (de novo standard of review of district court’s interpretation of state law). We also conclude that the district c ourt did not abuse its discretion in denying Herron’s motion to amend. See Wisdom v. First Midwest Bank of Poplar Bluff, 167 F.3d 402, 409 (8th Cir. 1999) (parties should not be allowed to amend complaint without showing how it could be am ended to save meritless claim). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72793-72794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29810]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XA050


National Saltwater Angler Registry Program

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has established an annual fee of fifteen dollars ($15.00) 
for registration of anglers, spear fishers and for-hire fishing vessels 
to register under the National Saltwater Angler Registry Program.

DATES: The registration fee will be required effective January 1, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Gordon C. Colvin, Fishery Biologist, NMFS ST-12453, 1315 
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gordon C. Colvin, Fishery Biologist; 
(301) 713-2367 x175; e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#387f574a5c5756167b57544e51567856575959165f574e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b0f7dfc2d4dfde9ef3dfdcc6d9def0dedfd1d19ed7dfc6">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final rule implementing the National 
Saltwater Angler Registry Program, 50 CFR part 600, subpart P, was 
published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2008. The final rule 
states that persons registering with NMFS must pay an annual fee 
effective January 1, 2011, and that NMFS will publish the annual

[[Page 72794]]

schedule for such fees in the Federal Register.
    NMFS has determined that the annual registration fee for anglers, 
spear fishers and for-hire fishing vessels will be fifteen dollars 
($15.00). All persons registering on or after January 1, 2011 will be 
required to pay the registration fee, unless they are exempt as 
indigenous people per the provisions of 50 CFR 600.1410(f).

    Dated: November 22, 2010.
Eric C. Schwaab,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-29810 Filed 11-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
26.304 Solicitation provision.

Insert the provision at 52.226-2, Historically Black College or University and Minority Institution

Representation, in solicitations exceeding the micro-purchase threshold, for research, studies,

supplies, or services of the type normally acquired from higher educational institutions.

Parent topic: Subpart 26.3 - Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions
4.000 Scope of part.       This part prescribes policies and procedures relating to the administrative aspects of contract execution, contractor-submitted paper documents, distribution, reporting, retention, and files.    **Parent topic:** Part 4 - Administrative and Information Matters
22.1403 Waivers.

(a) The Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs of the U.S. Department of

Labor (Director of OFCCP), may waive the application of any or all of the terms of the clause at

52.222-36, Equal Opportunity for Workers with Disabilities, for-

(1) Any contract if a waiver is deemed to be in the national interest; or

(2) Groups or categories of contracts if a waiver is in the national interest and it is-

(i) Impracticable to act on each request individually; and

(ii) Determined that the waiver will substantially contribute to convenience in administering the Act.

(b) The head of an agency may waive any requirement in this subpart when it is determined that the

contract is essential to the national security, and that its award without complying with such

requirements is necessary to the national security. Upon making such a determination, the head of

the agency shall notify the Director of OFCCP in writing within 30 days.

(c) The contracting officer shall submit requests for waivers in accordance with agency procedures.

(d) A waiver granted for a particular class of contracts may be withdrawn for any contract within

that class whenever considered necessary by the Director of OFCCP to achieve the purposes of the

Act. The withdrawal shall not apply to contracts awarded before the withdrawal. The withdrawal

shall not apply to solicitations under any means of sealed bidding unless it is made more than 10

days before the date set for bid opening.

Parent topic: Subpart 22.14 - Employment of Workers with Disabilities
Adams. Kevin (OST)

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Adams, Kevin (OST)

Tuesday, August 13, 2013 4:09 PM

'Alaska DOT, Steven D. Hatter '; Alaska DOT, Richard Sewell

Devany, Dennis (OST); Island Air, Bob Stanford (Stanford@Alaska.com)

Kodiak Request for Comments

Proposal of Island Air at Kodiak.pdf

Contacts: Steven Hatter - Alaska DOT

Mr. Steven D. Hatter

Deputy Commissioner, Aviation

4111 Aviation Avenue

PO Box 196900

Anchorage, AK 99519-6900

Dear Mr. Hatter,

Attached above is a copy of the one timely-filed proposal for Essential Air Service (EAS) at the 11 Kodiak and Afognak

water points, submitted by the incumbent, Island Air Service. We are currently reviewing that proposal. The attached

proposal is directly from the carrier and will soon be reflected in the Docket, which you may access through

Regulations.gov at DOT-OST-2000-6945, along with other pertinent information on this proceeding.

The next step in the carrier-selection process is for the submission of community comments, a critically important

element in our carrier-selection decision, especially the comments of civic officials. In this instance, the communities are

particularly small, and so we ask the State to do all it can to either encourage the communities themselves to respond or

to represent them as best as it is able.

Island Air's proposal was submitted on August 8, the due date, but as I was on vacation. Accordingly, I am asking that

parties get back to us by September 3, preferably by email,. We will docket this email, as well as any replies.

In brief, look at the proposal, and if you have any questions, call me, and get back to us by the deadline, September 3.

Best,

Kevin Adams

202-366-

1
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 13 - 00396 - CV

ROSE STARNES APPELLANT

V. AH4R I TX DFW, LLC, A DELA WARE LIMITED LIABILI TY CO. APPELLEE

---------- FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEM ORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Rose Starnes, pro se, appeal s the trial court’s judgment in a forcible entry and detainer suit that awarded possession of 24 40 Arroyo Springs Drive, Grand Prairie, Tarrant County, Te xas , to Appellee AH4R I TX DFW, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Co. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss this

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 appeal as moot , stating that Appellant failed to supersede enforcemen t of the judgment, a writ of possession was issued , and as a result of the execution of the writ, Appellee i s now in possession of the property. Appellant did not file a response to the motion

. A case becomes moot if, at any stage during the proceedings, a controversy ceases to exist between the parties. See Williams v. Lara , 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001). A judgment of possession in a forcible detainer action determines the right to immediate possession and is not intended to be a final determination of whether the eviction is wrongful. See Marshall v. Hous

. Auth. of the City of San Antonio , 198 S.W.3d 78 2, 787 (Tex. 2006); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.3 (stating that the only issue before a justice court in eviction cases is “right to actual possession and not title”). Although the failure to supersede a forcible detainer judgment does not divest a n appe llant of his right to appeal when the appellant is no longer in possession of the premises, an appeal from the judgment in that case becomes moot unless the appellant asserts “a potentially meritorious claim of righ t to current, actual possession of the [p roperty].” Marshall , 198 S.W.3d at 787 ; Wilhelm v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n , 349 S.W.3d 766, 768 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.)

. Appellant failed to supersede the judgment. The judgment has been executed, and Appellee is in possession of t he property. Thus, the issue of possession is no longer in controversy. Appellant has failed to assert any3 potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the property. Accordingly, we grant Appellee’s motion and dismiss the appe al as moot. PER CURIAM PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: March 20 , 2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-51010

MARK ANTHONY ESTRADA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ANITA LIMON, Caseworker, The Department of Family and Protective 

Services; ALICIA VELA, Therapist, Counseling Session, The Department of 

Family and Protective Services; AISLING MORALES, Family Based Safety 

Services Worker, The Department of Family and Protective Services; FNU 

MALDONADO, Officer, San Antonio Police Department; DONNA KAY 

MCKINNEY, District Clerk, Bexar County; LNU JOAQUINE, Bexar County 

Sheriff,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:18-CV-1106

Before JONES, ELROD, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mark Anthony Estrada, Texas prisoner # 906481, moves for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal. By moving this court for leave 

to proceed IFP, Estrada is challenging the district court’s determination that 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 18, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-51010 Document: 00515000757 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2019
No. 18-51010

2

his appeal is not taken in good faith. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th 

Cir. 1997).

“This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, 

if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). An untimely 

notice of appeal in a civil case deprives this court of jurisdiction. Bowles v. 

Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 213-14 (2007). Because Estrada did not file a timely 

notice of appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 lawsuit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, this court lacks 

jurisdiction over the instant appeal. See id.; FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The IFP 

motion is DENIED as moot. All remaining outstanding motions are DENIED.

 Case: 18-51010 Document: 00515000757 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2019
#### § 319.74-4 Costs and charges.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, will be responsible only for the costs of providing the services of an inspector during regularly assigned hours of duty and at the usual places of duty (provisions relating to costs for other services of an inspector are contained in 7 CFR part 354). The importer, owner, or agent or representative of the importer or owner of cut flowers is responsible for all additional costs of inspection, treatment, movement, storage, or destruction ordered by an inspector under this subpart, including the costs of any labor, chemicals, packing materials, or other supplies required.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

April 29, 2013

s0422

Order 

April 29, 2013

145968 & (40)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145968

COA: 307260

Wayne CC: 99-000122-FC

DONALD MERRITT,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to amend the application is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the August 13, 2012 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.