alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

§ 292.19 Requirements specific to ITO Summer EBT agencies. ( a ) The ITO Summer EBT Agency must ensure that Summer EBT Program benefits are used by the eligible household that receives such benefits to transact for supplemental foods from retailers that have been approved for participation in the WIC Program. The ITO Summer EBT agency must: ( 1 ) Use the same benefit delivery model for all participants throughout its service area, in accordance with its FNS-approved POM: ( i ) For ITOs using a CVB-only benefit delivery model, issue a benefit level equal to the amount set forth in § 292.15(e); and
( ii ) For ITOs using a food package benefit delivery model, a combination CVB and food package benefit delivery model, or an alternate benefit delivery model, issue a benefit not to exceed the amounts set forth in § 292.15(e);
( 2 ) Ensure vendors charge prices for eligible food items which are reasonable for the area(s) served and are at the current price or less than the current price charged to other customers. Vendors may not charge Summer EBT participants more for an item than the price in the retail environment for all other customers;
( 3 ) Provide participants supplemental foods deemed eligible for Summer EBT via an FNS-approved POM. Supplemental foods authorized for the WIC Program by the applicable WIC ITO must meet the requirements set forth in this paragraph (a)(3). The POM must identify a list of supplemental foods that: ( i ) Contain nutrients determined by nutritional research to be lacking in the diets of children, and promote the health of the population served by the program, as indicated by relevant nutrition science, public health concerns, and cultural eating patterns; and
( ii ) Do not include infant formula and infant foods.
( b ) ITO Summer EBT procedures and operations related to basic issuance requirements, reconciliation, benefit redemption, and functional and technical EBT system requirements, should be consistent with WIC regulations at § 246.12 of this chapter as applicable to the benefit delivery model used, to the extent such requirements do not conflict with the requirements set forth for ITO Summer EBT agencies in this part.
( c ) To ensure effective vendor integrity, the ITO Summer EBT agency must set forth a system which ensures: ( 1 ) Requirements and restrictions on the participation of vendors and the transaction of food benefits described at § 246.12 of this chapter, apply to activities involving Summer EBT benefits; and
( 2 ) Vendors are subject to the actions and penalties described at § 246.12 of this chapter for noncompliance or violations involving Summer EBT benefits; and
( 3 ) The standards for determination and disposition of claims against vendors described at § 246.12 of this chapter apply to Summer EBT benefits; or
( 4 ) Set forth an alternate system to ensure effective vendor management and vendor integrity.
#### Gryphon Domestic VI, LLC, et al., Respondents, v GBR Information Services, Inc., Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 65]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibble F. Payne, J), entered November 12, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, denied respondent GBR’s motion to quash a subpoena du*393ces tecum, and order, same court (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered April 20, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, denied GBR’s cross motion to vacate that earlier order and dismiss the petition, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs.

This is a turnover proceeding by judgment creditors, under CPLR article 52, against the issuers and guarantors of certain notes. A subpoena and restraining notice, with respect to property or assets belonging to the judgment debtors, was served on GBR, a third party that purportedly had been retained by one or more of the judgment debtors to perform bondholder solicitation or other related services. GBR opposed the petition and moved to quash the subpoena and restraining notice, disclaiming possession of any of the property in question.

Although the court found petitioners’ papers insufficient to direct a turnover, it declined to quash the subpoena, concluding that petitioners were entitled to discovery on a sufficient showing that GBR might have information that could assist them in satisfying their judgment. When GBR failed to produce any documents or witnesses for disclosure, petitioners moved, inter aha, to hold GBR’s president in contempt, and GBR cross-moved to vacate or modify the order and, upon reargument, to dismiss the turnover proceeding against it. The turnover proceeding was subsequently reassigned to the court that had presided over the underlying action, which denied both the cross motion for contempt and the motion to vacate the earlier order denying dismissal. All discovery matters were referred to a judicial hearing officer.

CPLR 5223 compels disclosure of “all matter relevant to the satisfaction of the judgment,” and sets forth “a generous standard which permits the creditor a broad range of inquiry through either the judgment debtor or any third person with knowledge of the debtor’s property” *(ICD Group v Israel Foreign Trade Co. [USA],*224 AD2d 293, 294 [1996]). Since GBR has not conclusively established that it lacks information to assist the judgment creditors in obtaining satisfaction of the judgment, petitioners are entitled to pursue discovery against it *(see Liberty Co. v Rogene Indus.,*272 AD2d 382 [2000]). Indeed, a third party such as GBR, which has admittedly been retained to assist several of the judgment debtors in restructuring their assets, may be subpoenaed to produce documents pertinent to the possible sale of those assets *(see ICD Group v Israel Foreign Trade Co. [USA],*224 AD2d 293 [1996], *supra).*

We have considered the balance of GBR’s arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.
98-1607.

#### Hillyer v. State Farm Ins. Co.

Lake App. No. 97-L-031.

Lundberg Stratton, J., would allow on Proposition of Law No. I only.

Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., dissent.
EXHIBIT 35.1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 35.1



                        ITEM 1123 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
             WITH RESPECT TO THE INDENTURE ("THE INDENTURE") FOR THE
                       HARTFORD LIFE GLOBAL FUNDING TRUSTS

I, Richard Tarnas, Vice President of The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A.
(the "Trustee"), state:

(a) a review of the Trustee's activities for the period October 1, 2006 through
June 15, 2007 and of the Trustee's performance under the Indenture has been made
under my supervision, and

(b) to the best of my knowledge, except as disclosed in the Trustee's
platform-level assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in
Item 1122 (d) of Regulation AB dated August 29, 2007, the Trustee has fulfilled
its obligations under the Indenture for the period described above.


Date: September 4, 2007



                               /s/ Richard Tarnas

                                   Richard Tarnas

                                   Vice President
4.1402 Procedures.

(a) Agencies shall ensure that contractors comply with the reporting requirements of 52.204-10,

Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards. Agencies shall review

contractor reports on a quarterly basis to ensure the information is consistent with contract

information. The agency is not required to address data for which the agency would not normally

have supporting information, such as the compensation information required of contractors and

first-tier subcontractors. However, the agency shall inform the contractor of any inconsistencies with

the contract information and require that the contractor correct the report, or provide a reasonable

explanation as to why it believes the information is correct. Agencies may review the reports at

http://www.fsrs.gov.

(b) When contracting officers report the contract action to the Federal Procurement Data System

(FPDS) in accordance with FAR subpart 4.6, certain data will then pre-populate from FPDS, to assist

contractors in completing and submitting their reports. If data originating from FPDS is found by the

contractor to be in error when the contractor completes the subcontract report, the contractor

should notify the Government contracting officer, who is responsible for correcting the data in

FPDS. Contracts reported using the generic entity identifier allowed at FAR 4.605(c)(2) will interfere

with the contractor’s ability to comply with this reporting requirement, because the data will not

pre-populate from FPDS.

(c) If the contractor fails to comply with the reporting requirements, the contracting officer shall

exercise appropriate contractual remedies. In addition, the contracting officer shall make the

contractor’s failure to comply with the reporting requirements a part of the contractor’s

performance information under subpart 42.15.

(d) There is a reporting exception in 52.204-10(g) for contractors and subcontractors who had gross

income in the previous tax year under $300,000.

Parent topic: Subpart 4.14 - Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards
APPENDIX C

Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan

2011
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:02-cr-00043-MP-AK

JOCELYNN DENAY BANKS,

Defendant.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on a request by the United States Probation Office to

continue the disposition on the revocation of supervised release. A special condition of

Defendant’s supervised release was the completion of her G.E.D. Because Defendant is

currently in the process of finishing her G.E.D., Probation requests that the sentencing hearing

set for July 17, 2008, be continued. This request is granted, and the final hearing on the 

revocation of supervised release is continued to a date to be set by separate notice. Until

sentencing, Defendant shall be subject to the same terms and conditions of supervised release as

previously imposed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of July, 2008

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:02-cr-00043-MP-GRJ Document 449 Filed 07/10/08 Page 1 of 1
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### June 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 130410 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 130410 COA: 257164 Oakland CC: 03-192493-FH KAZEEM OMOTOSHO ADISA, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e December 20, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0619 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 26, 2006

Clerk
August 16 , 2016



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RONALD KELVIN PERRY , Appellant

NO. 14

- 15

- 00471

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_____________________ ___________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in t he judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for o bservance.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

TERRENCE TERRELL PARKER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20cv41-MW/MAF

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

and Recommendation. ECF No. 6. Upon consideration, no objection having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “This case is DISMISSED for 

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court order.” The Clerk shall also 

close the file.

SO ORDERED on April 13, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2574 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2574

   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain golf club driver heads.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 6, 2006

Mr. Kerry (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain golf club driver heads.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN GOLF CLUB DRIVER HEADS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.95.12      Golf club driver    Free         No Change        No Change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         heads of                                                           31/2009
                         titanium, each
                         with an aluminum
                         hosel insert and
                         a plasma welded
                         face plate, and
                         with 10.5 degree
                         loft (provided
                         for in subheading
                         9506.39.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Case 4:99-cv-00242-RH Document 51 Filed 09/19/00 Page 1 of 10
Case 4:99-cv-00242-RH Document 51 Filed 09/19/00 Page 2 of 10
Case 4:99-cv-00242-RH Document 51 Filed 09/19/00 Page 3 of 10
Case 4:99-cv-00242-RH Document 51 Filed 09/19/00 Page 4 of 10
Case 4:99-cv-00242-RH Document 51 Filed 09/19/00 Page 5 of 10
Case 4:99-cv-00242-RH Document 51 Filed 09/19/00 Page 6 of 10
Case 4:99-cv-00242-RH Document 51 Filed 09/19/00 Page 7 of 10
Case 4:99-cv-00242-RH Document 51 Filed 09/19/00 Page 8 of 10
Case 4:99-cv-00242-RH Document 51 Filed 09/19/00 Page 9 of 10
Case 4:99-cv-00242-RH Document 51 Filed 09/19/00 Page 10 of 10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JENNIFER LYNN FALTINOWSKI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20-cv-5819-MCR-MJF

KILOLO KIJAKAZI,

Defendant.

/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation dated August 20, 2021. (ECF No. 19). The parties have been 

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an 

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 

636(b)(1). There are no objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the record, I have 

determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

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

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The Petition for Attorney Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act 

(Doc. 18) is GRANTED.

Case 3:20-cv-05819-MCR-MJF Document 20 Filed 09/27/21 Page 1 of 2
3. Plaintiff shall recover costs in the amount of $400, and attorney fees of 

$815.10 for time expended by her counsel in representing her before the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The fee award is subject to 

an offset to satisfy any qualifying debt that Plaintiff owes to the United States.

4. If Plaintiff receives all or any portion of the EAJA fee award, Defendant 

shall mail it to Plaintiff in care of her attorney, Erik W. Berger, 3744 Dupont Station 

Court South, Jacksonville, Florida 32217.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of September 2021.

s/M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05819-MCR-MJF Document 20 Filed 09/27/21 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Richard Remington, Appellant, v Harold J. Smith, as Superintendent of the Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated at Special Term, Conable, J. (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming Supreme Court—habeas corpus.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Moule, JJ.
95-1060.

#### State v. Allard.

Knox App. No. 937. On July 17, 1996, this court stayed the execution of sentence in this cause pending disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. Appellee has moved that this court set a date for execution of sentence. It appearing to the court that the petition for a writ of certiorari has been denied, and that all matters have been disposed of in case No. 95-1060, appellant’s direct appeal of his conviction, and case No. 97-2669, appellant’s post-conviction appeal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that the stay of execution entered in this cause on July 17.1996, be and is hereby revoked.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED by this court that said sentence be carried into execution by the Warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility or, in his absence, by the Deputy Warden on Monday, the 23rd day of November 1998, in accordance with the statutes so provided.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certified copy of this entry and a warrant under the seal of this court be duly certified to the Warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility and that said Warden shall make due return thereof to the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of Knox County.
#### City of New York, Appellant, v M. Paul Friedberg & Associates et al., Respondents. Whitler Contracting Co., Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant.

Order Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 31, 1979, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, and without prejudice to the city renewing its request to seek additional damages on the causes of action already asserted upon documentation thereof, and without prejudice to the city renewing its request to assert a cause of action for indemnity against Friedberg upon a record of payment of a judgment to Whitler. No opinion. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Lupiano, Lynch and Carro, JJ.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2680

_____________________________ C URTIS B ROWN ,
Petitioner
,

v.

J ULIE L. J ONES , Secretary, Florida Department o f Corrections
, Respondent

.

_________________________ ____

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

— Original Jurisdiction

.

August 8, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied on the merits.

M AKAR , O STERHAUS , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Curtis Brown, pro se
, Petitioner

. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee; Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallah assee , for Respondent

.
Case 4:99-cv-00242-RH Document 125 Filed 12/18/02 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:99-cv-00242-RH Document 125 Filed 12/18/02 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6036 

STANLEY HARVEY DAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ARTHUR F. BEELER,

Warden,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CA-04-246-5-H; CA-04-369-5-H)

Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 2, 2005

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Harvey Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Harvey Davis, a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court’s order denying relief on his petitions filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Davis v. United States, Nos. CA-04-246-5-H;

CA-04-369-5-H (E.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 2004). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 27 2000

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

EINSTEIN (BOSS MAN), a/k/a

ACCOUNTABILITY BURNS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TULSA COUNTY ELECTION

BOARD,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-5054

(D.C. No. 74-CV-153-E)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, EBEL, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Einstein (Boss Man) a/k/a Accountability Burns appeals the district court

order denying his motions for new trial, retrial and change of venue, and his
1

 Mr. Einstein’s motion for default judgment is denied.

-2-

motion to reinstate the case. The district court denied plaintiff’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis and plaintiff now seeks leave to proceed in forma

pauperis in this court.

In ruling on plaintiff’s motions, the district court reviewed docket entries

24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, and concluded that the motions raised new claims and

therefore should have been pursued as new original actions. The record on 

appeal consists of material from a case originally filed in 1974 and copies of

media articles, many of which are annotated by plaintiff. The record does not,

however, contain the docket entries ruled on by the district court. We therefore

have nothing to review. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is

denied and the appeal is DISMISSED.

1

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Chief Judge