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. CASE NO. 4:97-cr-62-RH-GRJ

CARLON BURNICE CRAWFORD,

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 132, Defendant’s motion to vacate, set

aside or correct a sentence by a person in federal custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. Defendant was sentenced in the underlying criminal case on May 16, 2012

and has appealed the judgment of conviction. (Docs. 118, 121, 124). That appeal is

still pending. See United States v. Crawford, Case No. 12-12885-A, Eleventh Circuit

Court of Appeals. 

Defendant’s motion to vacate is premature, as the district court lacks jurisdiction

to consider and rule on a § 2255 motion during the pendency of the direct appeal. See

United States v. Durham, 240 F.3d 1328, 1329-30 (11 Cir. 2001); United States v. th

Khoury, 901 F. 2d 975, 976 (11 Cir. 1990), modified, United States v. Khoury, 910 F. th

2d 713 (11 Cir. 1990); Welsh v. United States, 404 F. 2d 333 (5 cir. 1968); see also th th

United States v. Casaran-Rivas, 311 Fed. Appx. 269, 273 (“absent extraordinary

circumstances, a defendant may not seek collateral relief while his direct appeal is

pending, as the outcome of the direct appeal may negate the need for habeas relief.”).

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Doc. 132, be DISMISSED as premature.
Page 2 of 2

The dismissal should be without prejudice to Defendant to file a motion to vacate after

the disposition of the direct appeal.

IN CHAMBERS this 3 day of June 2013. 

rd

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), a party may file specific, written objections to the

proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report

and recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 14 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 No: 4:97-cr-62-RH-GRJ
§ 4279.216 Environmental responsibilities. Lenders are responsible for becoming familiar with Federal environmental requirements; considering, in consultation with the prospective Borrower, the potential environmental impacts of their proposals at the earliest planning stages; and developing proposals that minimize the potential to adversely impact the environment. ( a ) Lenders must alert the Agency to any environmental issues related to a proposed Project or items that may require extensive environmental review.
( b ) Lenders must ensure that the Borrower has: ( 1 ) Provided the necessary environmental documentation to enable the Agency to undertake its environmental review process in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, including the provision of all required Federal, State, and local permits.
( 2 ) Complied with any mitigation measures required by the Agency; and
( 3 ) Not taken any actions or incurred any obligations with respect to the proposed Project that will either limit the range of alternatives to be considered during the Agency's environmental review process or which will have an adverse effect on the environment.
( c ) Lenders must assist in the collection of additional data when the Agency needs such data to complete its environmental review of the proposal and assist in the resolution of environmental issues.
[61 FR 67633, Dec. 23, 1996, as amended at 81 FR 11051, Mar. 2, 2016]
# 16.603 Letter contracts.

- 16.603-1 Description. 
- 16.603-2 Application. 
- 16.603-3 Limitations. 
- 16.603-4 Contract clauses. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 16.6 - Time-and-Materials, Labor-Hour, and Letter Contracts
Editorial Note on Part 4290
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

§ 4290.860 Financing fees and expense reimbursements a RBIC may receive from an Enterprise. ( a ) *General rule.* You may collect Financing fees and receive expense reimbursements from an Enterprise only as permitted under this § 4290.860.
( b ) *Application fee.* You may collect a nonrefundable application fee from an Enterprise to review its Financing application. The application fee may be collected at the same time as the closing fee under paragraph (d) or (e) of this section, or earlier. The fee must be: ( 1 ) No more than one percent of the amount of Financing requested (or, if two or more RBICs participate in the Financing, their combined application fees are no more than one percent of the total Financing requested); and
( 2 ) Agreed to in writing by the Financing applicant.
( c ) *The Agency's review of application fees.* For any fiscal year, if the number of application fees you collect is more than twice the number of Financings closed, the Agency in its sole discretion may determine that you are engaged in activities not contemplated by the Act, in violation of § 4290.500.
( d ) *Closing fee—Loans.* You may charge a closing fee on a Loan if: ( 1 ) The fee is no more than two percent of the Financing amount (or, if two or more RBICs participate in the Financing, their combined closing fees are no more than two percent of the total Financing amount); and
( 2 ) You charge the fee no earlier than the date of the first disbursement.
( e ) *Closing fee—Debt or Equity Financings.* You may charge a Closing Fee on a Debt Security or Equity Security Financing if: ( 1 ) The fee is no more than four percent of the Financing amount (or, if two or more RBICs participate in the Financing, their combined closing fees are no more than four percent of the total Financing amount); and
( 2 ) You charge the fee no earlier than the date of the first disbursement.
( f ) *Limitation on dual fees.* If another RBIC or an Associate of yours collects a transaction fee under § 4290.900(e) in connection with your Financing of an Enterprise, the sum of the transaction fee and your application and closing fees cannot exceed the maximum application and closing fees permitted under this § 4290.860.
( g ) *Expense reimbursements.* You may charge an Enterprise for the reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, other than Management Expenses, that you incur to process its Financing application. If the Agency determines that any of your reimbursed expenses are unreasonable or are Management Expenses, the Agency will require you to refund them to the Enterprise.
( h ) *Breakup fee.* If an Enterprise accepts your Commitment and then fails to close the Financing because it has accepted funds from another source, you may charge a “breakup fee” equal to the closing fee that you would have been permitted to charge under paragraph (d) or (e) of this section.
Editorial Note on Part 47
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 47 appear at 64 FR 38108, July 15, 1999.

§ 47.14 Prehearing conferences. ( a ) In any proceeding in which it appears that a conference will expedite the proceeding, the examiner, at any time prior to or during the course of the oral hearing, may request the parties or their counsel to appear at a conference before the examiner to consider: ( 1 ) The simplification of the issues;
( 2 ) The necessity or the desirability of amendments to the pleadings;
( 3 ) The possibility of obtaining stipulations of fact and of documents which will avoid unnecessary proof;
( 4 ) The limitation of the number of expert or other witnesses; or
( 5 ) Such other matters as may expedite and aid in the disposition of the proceeding.
( b ) No transcript or recording of the conference shall be made. If the conference is conducted by correspondence, the examiner shall forward copies of letters and documents to the parties as circumstances require. The correspondence in connection with a conference shall not be part of the record. The examiner shall prepare and file for the record a written summary of the action agreed upon or taken at the conference, which shall incorporate any written stipulations or agreements made by the parties at the conference or as a result of the conference.
( c ) *Manner of the Conference.* ( 1 ) The conference shall be conducted by telephone or correspondence unless the examiner determines that conducting the conference by audio-visual telecommunication: ( i ) Is necessary to prevent prejudice to a party;
( ii ) Is necessary because of a disability of any individual expected to participate in the conference; or
( iii ) Would cost less than conducting the conference by telephone or correspondence. If the examiner determines that a conference conducted by audio-visual telecommunication would measurably increase the United States Department of Agriculture's cost of conducting the conference, the conference shall be conducted by personal attendance of any individual who is expected to participate in the conference, by telephone, or by correspondence.
( 2 ) If the conference is not conducted by telephone or correspondence, the conference shall be conducted by audio-visual telecommunication unless the examiner determines that conducting the conference by personal attendance of any individual who is expected to participate in the conference: ( i ) Is necessary to prevent prejudice to a party;
( ii ) Is necessary because of a disability of any individual expected to participate in the conference; or
( iii ) Would cost less than conducting the conference by audio-visual telecommunication.
[60 FR 8460, Feb. 14, 1995]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q/A FOR FISCAL QUARTER ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<CASH>                              207,693
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                     2,054,445
<ALLOWANCES>                         16,570      
<INVENTORY>                         808,046
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  3,272,452
<PP&E>                            5,861,738
<DEPRECIATION>                    2,710,553
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   15,423,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             9,863,235
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                         140,119
<COMMON>                          1,131,255
<OTHER-SE>                        4,039,796
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     15,423,416
<SALES>                           4,391,991
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  4,391,991
<CGS>                             3,456,529
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     3,456,529
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  2,818,558
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  105,965
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (1,989,061)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (1,989,061)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                     (1,989,061)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.19)
        


</TABLE>
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE 76TH DISTRICT COURT OF MORRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 9th 

day of April, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined; 

and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Rashad Lee, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 06-14-00112-CR

Trial Court No. 10,947CR

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error related to the judgment of 

conviction entered in this matter. Because we lack jurisdiction to hear appellant’s point of error 

concerning the trial court’s Order to Withdraw Funds, we dismiss his second point of error for 

want of jurisdiction. 

We note that the appellant, Rashad Lee, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs 

of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 14th day of October, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

 42

▲ ★

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL
AMENDMENT
NUMBER TWO

    TO THE
OCTOBER 24, 2008 SALES AGREEMENT

    


    


    


    This
amendment number two (“Amendment 2”), effective as of May 1, 2009 (the
“Amendment 2 Effective Date”), amends the Sales Agreement dated October 24, 2008
between Zoo Publishing, Inc. (“Zoo”) and Atari, Inc. (“Atari”), as further
amended pursuant to Amendment 1,  and, in full force and effect as of
the date hereof (the “Sales Agreement”).  This
Amendment 2, when fully executed, shall constitute the further understanding
between the parties with respect to the Sales Agreement, as
follows:

    


    


    Section 3
is modified as follows:

    


    The Term
is hereby extended through May 31, 2009.

    


    


    Except as
expressly or by necessary implication modified or amended by this Amendment 2,
the terms of the Sales Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed without
limitation or exception.  Capitalized terms used in this Amendment 2
and not otherwise defined shall have the same meaning ascribed to them as set
forth in the Sales Agreement.

    


    The
parties hereto have executed this Amendment 2, which shall be effective as of
the Amendment 2 Effective Date.

     

     

    
      
        
          
            
              
                
                  
                    
                      
                        
                          
                            
                              
                                	Zoo
      Publishing, Inc. 	 	Atari,
      Inc.	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	
                                        /s/
      Mark Seremet

                                      	 	By:	
                                        /s/
      James Wilson

                                      	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	
                                        Name:
      Mark Seremet

                                      	 	 	
                                        Name:
      James Wilson

                                      	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	
                                        Title: 
       Chief Executive Officer

                                      	 	 	
                                        Title:  
      Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Andrews, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered January 7, 1980, affirmed. No opinion. This case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Hopkins, J. P., Gulotta, Hargett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

ClassificationDisabilitiesDisability IdentificationDisciplineDue ProcessEarly Childhood EducationEducational ChangeEducational LegislationElementary Secondary EducationFederal LegislationInclusive SchoolsIndividualized Education ProgramsMainstreamingParent ParticipationStudent EvaluationTeacher Education

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Identifiers - Laws, Policies, & Programs:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
#### In the Matter of Frank J. Duffy et al., Individually and as Officers of the Committee on Open Lands on Staten Island, and on Behalf of Other Citizens Similarly Situated, et al., Respondents, v. Housing and Redevelopment Board et al., Appellants. In the Matter of Beral Estates, Inc., by Harry Berger, President, Appellant, v. Judah Gribetz, as Commissioner of Buildings in and for the City of New York, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, without costs or disbursements to any party, to delete the second and third numbered subdivisions of the first decretal paragraph and to delete the second decretal paragraph providing for the cancellation of certain building permits and making various directions for the implementation of a proposed but not yet propounded urban renewal plan pursuant to article 15 of the General Municipal Law, by restoring all building permits heretofore duly issued by agencies of the City of New York to petitioner Beral Estates, Inc., and by dismissing the petition in behalf of petitioner Duffy and others on the ground that it is insufficient as a matter of law, and the judgment *528is otherwise affirmed. Despite the importance of the issues raised in this consolidated proceeding, there has been a shocking 'failure by the parties to support by reference to any rule of law in decision or statute, the extraordinary demands for relief against the city and in restraint of private property rights. On argument it was conceded that nothing contained in article 15 of the General Municipal Law provided authority for any of the demands against the city or the relief sought in restraint of private property owners. Reference to any other law was uncertain and eventually found to be untenable. Certainly the minimum requirements of a basis in either statute or decisional law were not met. And the grave constitutional questions resulting from the taking of property were not even reached. Lastly the city’s sterile effort to adopt a neutral stance in these controversies for the past five years did not contribute to a resolution of the problems. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2316 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2316

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 
the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf in the 
            Mid-Atlantic and North Atlantic planning areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 16, 2006

Mr. Menendez (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 
the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf in the 
            Mid-Atlantic and North Atlantic planning areas.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti-
Drilling Act'' or the ``COAST Anti-Drilling Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE 
              OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.

    Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(p) Prohibition of Oil and Gas Leasing in Certain Areas of the 
Outer Continental Shelf.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
section or any other law, the Secretary of the Interior shall not issue 
a lease for the exploration, development, or production of oil, natural 
gas, or any other mineral in--
            ``(1) the Mid-Atlantic planning area; or
            ``(2) the North Atlantic planning area.''.
                                 <all>
```
***Space Above Line Reserved for Reorder’s Use***

 

 

| 1.**   | Title of Document:**                   | Deed of Trust and Security Agreement**                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2.     | Date of Document:                      | August ___, 2006 **                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
| 3.     | Grantor(s):**                          | Everest Bayberry, LP**                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
| 4.     | Grantee(s):**                          | Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB

* *                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
| 5.     | Statutory Mailing Address(es):**       | Grantor:

* *                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|   | * *                               | Everest Bayberry, LPC/O Everest Properties199 S. Los Robles Avenue, Suite 200Pasadena, California 91101

 

Grantee:

 

Lehman Brothers Bank, FSBC/O Lehman Brothers, Inc.1000 West StreetWilmington, Delaware19801

* * |
| 6.     | Legal Description:**                   | See Exhibit A annexed to the document.

* *                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| 7.     | Reference(s) to Book(s) and Page(s):** | Not Applicable

* *                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |

 

 

 

 

----