alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James A. Harper and Kathy Harper, Appellants.

Two judgments of the Supreme *737Court, Kings County, rendered May 26, 1965, each convicting a respective one of the two defendants of robbery and grand larceny (both in the first degree), assault in the second degree (two counts) and burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentences, reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact below have been affirmed. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing that was held herein, the court ruled that the alleged confession was freely and voluntarily given by defendants. At the trial, which was held in February of 1965, the confession was received in evidence and the issue of its voluntariness was among those submitted to the jury. However, it has' long been the rule that a confession, though not the product of coercion, made by an accused after a request for counsel had been denied, is inadmissible *(People*v. *Sanchez,*15 N Y 2d 387, 389; *People*v. *Donovan,*13 N Y 2d 148, 153; *People*v. *Noble,*9 N Y 2d 571; *Escobedo*v. *Illinois,*378 U. S. 478). In the circumstances, it was prejudicial error for the court to refuse to charge the jury that if they believed that defendant James Harper asked to speak to an attorney before defendants made the statement, and that that request was refused, they should disregard the testimony relating to the statement. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JOHN MICHAEL HASKEW,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv1435-MCR-EMT

ELIZABETH WARREN, CLERK,

Defendant.

__________________________/

O R D E R

The Chief Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on 

February 28, 2020. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff was furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all 

timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 

9, is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv1435-MCR-EMT

2. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state 

a plausible claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

3. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

4. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close 

the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of April 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### Jack Hershkowitz, as Father of Eric Hershkowitz, an Infant, et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. Steven B. Merl et al., Respondents-Appellants.

Appeal by plaintiffs, as limited by their brief, from the portion a of the Supreme Court, Kings County, as amended by order of said court dated June 19, 1968, which is in favor of defendants Merl upon a directed verdict at a trial solely on the issues of liability; and cross appeals by all the parties from an order of the same court, dated June 29, 1965, which denied the separate motions of all the parties for summary judgment. Amended judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to defendants Merl against plaintiffs. No opinion. Appeals from the order dismissed, without costs. These appeals are academic, since the parties went to trial before perfection of the appeals; and since judgment was entered after trial. Further insofar as taken by plaintiffs and defendant Sevel Hotel Corporation (from respective parts of the order) the appeals have been abandoned. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cr56-TKW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 3:20cr56-TKW

DONOVAN ELLIS

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. 

R. Crim. P., and has entered a plea of guilty to Count Three, Count Five, and Count 

Six of the indictment. After cautioning and examining the Defendant under oath 

concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined the guilty plea 

was knowing and voluntary and the offenses charged are supported by independent 

bases in fact containing each of the essential elements thereof. I therefore 

recommend the plea of guilty be accepted and the Defendant be adjudicated guilty 

and have sentence imposed accordingly.

Dated this 9th day of December 2020.

/s/ Charles J. Kahn, Jr. 

CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00056-TKW Document 87 Filed 12/09/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cr56-TKW

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed 

within twenty-four hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different 

deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use 

only, and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon the 

magistrate judge and all other parties. A party failing to object to a magistrate 

judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and 

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See U.S. Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 

3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case 3:20-cr-00056-TKW Document 87 Filed 12/09/20 Page 2 of 2
#### §§ 400.165-400.168 [Reserved]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, 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

September 11, 2009 

0831 

Order 

 

September 11, 2009 

138930-1 

BAGLEY ACQUISITION CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 SC: 138930 

v COA: 279681 

 Wayne CC: 05-523726-CZ 

HOMRICH WRECKING, INC., d/b/a 

HOMRICH, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

AUTO CLUB GROUP, CITY OF DETROIT, 

DETROIT ECONOMIC GROWTH 

CORPORATION, and STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

BAGLEY ACQUISITION CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 SC: 138931 

v COA: 281037 

 Wayne CC: 05-523726-CZ 

HOMRICH WRECKING, INC., d/b/a 

HOMRICH, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

AUTO CLUB GROUP, CITY OF DETROIT, 

DETROIT ECONOMIC GROWTH 

CORPORATION, and STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 19, 2009 

judgment 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.
Case 5:20-cv-00157-AW-MJF   Document 2   Filed 06/02/20   Page 1 of 1
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2021421EN.01007501.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 26.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 421/75 |

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 231 of 30 June 2021](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2021_231_R_TOC)
)

On page 57, Annex III, point 1 ‘Output indicators’, item 1.2.2:

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘1.2.2. | proportion of the ESF+ co-financed food in the total volume of food distributed the beneficiaries (in %).’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘1.2.2. | proportion of the ESF+ co-financed food in the total volume of food distributed by the beneficiaries (in %).’. |

---
2009 Executive Officer Compensation Arrangements



 Exhibit 10.84 
 2009 Executive Officer Compensation Arrangements 
  

			
	 Executive Officer
	  	2009 Base Salary
Rate ($)
	 Bruce C. Cozadd
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
	  	421,200
	 Samuel R. Saks, M.D. (1)
Former Chief
Executive Officer
	  	421,200
	 Robert M. Myers
President
	  	399,600
	 Carol A. Gamble
Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
	  	339,150
	 Janne L. T. Wissel
Senior Vice President and Chief Regulatory Officer
	  	321,300
	 Joan E. Colligan
Principal Accounting Officer and Acting Principal Financial Officer
	  	210,000

  

	 (1)
	 Dr. Saks resigned his position with the company effective April 3, 2009 and has not received any compensation
since that date. Dr. Saks executed a consulting agreement with us effective April 4, 2009 through April 3, 2010, but to date has not performed any consulting for us pursuant to that agreement.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

WANDA DIAZ-PEREZ,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 5:02-CV-065-SPM/AK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the “Notice to the Court” (doc.

93) filed April 20, 2005, in which the Government advises that the case has

settled and the parties are in the process of finalizing a settlement agreement. 

Pursuant to Northern District of Florida Local Rule 16.2(D), it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is dismissed with prejudice

and all pending motions are denied as moot. The Court retains jurisdiction for a

period of sixty days during which time any party may move to reopen the case for

good cause shown.

DONE AND ORDERED this twenty-fifth day of April, 2005.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

/pao

Case 5:02-cv-00065-SPM-MD Document 96 Filed 04/25/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case 5:02-cv-00065-SPM-MD Document 96 Filed 04/25/05 Page 2 of 2
# 1.000 Scope of part.

This part sets forth basic policies and general information about the Federal *Acquisition* Regulations System including purpose, authority, applicability, issuance, arrangement, numbering, dissemination, implementation, supplementation, maintenance, administration, and deviation. subparts  1.2,1.3, and 1.4 prescribe administrative procedures for maintaining the FAR System.

**Parent topic:**Part 1 - Federal Acquisition Regulations System
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 99.4



CONTACTS:   Duane Kimble                           Joel Pomerantz
            Baldwin Piano                          The Dilenschneider Group
            (513) 754-4647                         (212) 922-0900



                BALDWIN PIANO NAMES NEW DIRECTOR TO FILL VACANCY


       MASON, OHIO, January 8, 2001 - The board of directors of Baldwin Piano &
Organ Company (NASDAQ:BPAO), today announced the appointment of Kenneth W.
Pavia, Sr. to the company's board of directors.

       Mr. Pavia, president of the California-based Bolero Investment Group,
will fill the board seat recently vacated by Brent D. Baird, who resigned from
the board in late December, citing the time pressures of other business
obligations as the reason.

       Commenting on Mr. Pavia's appointment, Karen L. Hendricks, chairman,
president and chief executive officer of Baldwin said: "Ken Pavia has been a
major Baldwin shareholder for several years, and I know he is anxious to be
helpful to the company. The board will benefit from his thinking and
perspective, and he will gain additional insight into the challenges and
opportunities facing Baldwin Piano."

       Mr. Pavia has had broad experience as a money manager, a financial
advisor in the entertainment industry, and in arranging financings as an
investment banker. He founded the Bolero Investment Group as a limited
partnership in 1994. The Baldwin Piano & Organ Company was one of the Group's
first investments. Mr. Pavia serves on the board of the Seibels Bruce Insurance
Group, Inc. He is a former chairman of Fiduciary Leasco, Inc., one of the
largest leasing companies in the Southeast, and of Fiduciary Funding
Corporation, a provider of aircraft financing, investment banking, and financial
consulting services.

                                     -more-
<PAGE>   2




                                      -2-


       Baldwin Piano & Organ Company, the maker of America's best selling
pianos, has marketed keyboard musical products for over 140 years.

       "Safe Harbor" statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
       Act of 1995: This release contains forward looking statements that are
       subject to risk and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, the
       impact of competitive products and pricing, product demand and market
       acceptance, reliance on key strategic alliances, fluctuations in
       operating results and other risks detailed from time to time in the
       company's filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                     # # # #
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

MILTON R MURRAH,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 5:03-cv-00140-MP-EMT

JAMES R MCDONOUGH,

Respondent.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 35, Motion for Certificate of Appealability and

Doc. 36, Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis. With regard to Doc. 35, the court must

determine whether Petitioner should be granted a Certificate of Appealability ("COA"), and if so,

which issue(s) should be certified for appeal. Also, with regard to the motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, the Court must consider whether the appeal is taken in good faith, as the term is used in

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3) and (4). In Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029 (2003),

the Supreme Court stated the following standard: 

 § 2253(c) permits the issuance of a COA only where a petitioner has made a

“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” In Slack, supra, at

483, 120 S.Ct. 1595, we recognized that Congress codified our standard,

announced in Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090

(1983), for determining what constitutes the requisite showing. Under the

controlling standard, a petitioner must “sho[w] that reasonable jurists could

debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been

resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to

deserve encouragement to proceed further.’ ” 529 U.S., at 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595

(quoting Barefoot, supra, at 893, n. 4, 103 S.Ct. 3383).

Id. at 336.

Here, although the Court continues to adhere to its decision in the order adopting the

Case 5:03-cv-00140-MP-EMT Document 38 Filed 05/02/07 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 5:03-cv-00140-MP-EMT

Report and Recommendation, Doc. 32, the issue of the trustworthiness and effect of the alleged

videotaped witness recantation in this case is "adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further." Likewise, the appeal is taken in good faith. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The motion for Certificate of Appealability, doc. 35, is granted, and the Motion to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, doc. 36, is also granted. A copy of this

order should be sent to the Eleventh Circuit.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of May, 2007

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-00140-MP-EMT Document 38 Filed 05/02/07 Page 2 of 2
#### § 4288.25 Succession and control of facilities and production.

Any party obtaining a biorefinery that is participating in this program must request permission to participate in this program as a successor. The Agency may grant such request if it is determined that, the party is eligible, and permitting such succession would serve the purposes of the program. If appropriate, the Agency will require the consent of the previous party to such succession. Also, the Agency may terminate payments and demand full refund of payments made if a party loses control of a biorefinery whose production of heat or power from renewable biomass is the basis of a program payment, or otherwise fails to retain the ability to assure that all program obligations and requirements will be met.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 30, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 73972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30109]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2009-0312; SW FRL-9231-3]


Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of 
Hazardous Waste; Removal of Direct Final Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Removal of Direct Final Exclusion.

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

SUMMARY: Because EPA received adverse comment, we are removing the 
direct final exclusion for Eastman Chemical Company--Texas Operations, 
published on September 24, 2010.

DATES: Effective November 30, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Peace, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, RCRA 
Branch, Mail Code: 6PD-C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, by 
calling (214) 665-7430 or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8bfbeeeae8eea5e6e2e8e3eee7e7eecbeefbeaa5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0272676361672c6f6b616a676e6e67426772632c656d74">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because EPA received adverse comment, we are 
removing the direct final exclusion for Eastman Chemical Company--Texas 
Operations, published on September 24, 2010, 75 FR 58315. We stated in 
that direct final rule that if we received adverse comment by October 
25, 2010, the direct final rule would not take effect and we would 
publish a timely removal in the Federal Register. We subsequently 
received adverse comment on that direct final rule. We will address the 
comments submitted in a subsequent final action which will be based on 
the parallel proposed rule also published on September 24, 2010, 75 FR 
58346. As stated in the direct final rule and the parallel proposed 
rule, we will not institute a second comment period on this action.

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental Protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).

    Dated: November 16, 2010.
Bill Luthans,
Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division.

0
40 CFR part 261 is amended as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.


0
2. In Tables 1, 2 and 3 of Appendix IX of part 261 remove the following 
facility's waste streams: for Facility: Eastman Chemical Company--Texas 
Operations, Address: Longview, TX; Waste Description: RKI bottom ash, 
RKI fly ash and RKI scrubber water blowdown.

[FR Doc. 2010-30109 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2496 

To expand the definition of immediate relative for purposes of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 3, 2006 

Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To expand the definition of immediate relative for purposes 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF IMMEDIATE RELATIVE. 

4 Section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Na5 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)) is amended by 

6 inserting ‘‘For purposes of this subsection, a child of a 

7 parent of a citizen of the United States shall be considered 

8 an immediate relative if the child is accompanying or folVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:54 Apr 04, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2496.IS S2496

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 2496 IS

1 lowing to join the parent.’’ after ‘‘at least 21 years of 

2 age.’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 4:97cr9-RH/GRJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:97cr9-RH/GRJ

ANTHONY WILLIAMS,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE SECOND § 2255 MOTION

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, ECF No. 102, and the objections, ECF No. 103. I have reviewed 

de novo the issues raised by the objections. 

In 1997, a jury convicted the petitioner Anthony Williams of possessing a 

firearm as a convicted felon. At sentencing Mr. Williams was found to have prior 

violent-felony convictions that made him an armed career criminal under 18 

U.S.C. § 924(e). Mr. Williams was sentenced accordingly. He appealed, 

challenging the finding that he was an armed career criminal, but lost. Mr. 

Williams sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 but again lost. A certificate of 

appealability was denied, both here and in the Eleventh Circuit. Mr. Williams also 
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:97cr9-RH/GRJ

lost an additional motion challenging the sentence, purportedly under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 60.

Mr. Williams now has filed a new § 2255 motion asserting that, under 

Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), he was improperly treated as an 

armed career criminal. As correctly noted in the report and recommendation, Mr. 

Williams cannot pursue this successive § 2255 motion without authorization from 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Moreover, Mr. 

Williams has alleged no explanation for waiting seven years to assert a claim based 

on Shepard and no basis for his conclusory assertion that his sentence was 

inconsistent with Shepard.

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s 

opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The defendant’s motion for relief 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is denied.” The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on December 5, 2012.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge
**EXHIBIT 21**

**List of Subsidiaries**

6D Comverge, Inc. 

Alternative Energy Resources, Inc. 

Clean Power Markets, Inc. 

Comverge Control Systems, Ltd. 

Comverge Energy Management, Inc. 

Comverge Energy Partners, Ltd. 

Comverge Canada, Inc. 

Comverge Giant, Inc. 

Comverge Utah, Inc. 

Enerwise Global Technologies, Inc. 

PES NY, LLC 

Public Energy Solutions NY, LLC 

Public Energy Solutions, LLC 

Public Electric, Inc.